Republican Sinn Féin, elitism and the broadfront

[Vox Populi]

Coming in contact with some Republican Sinn Féin members and supporters during the election this year I was perplexed by some of the positions being put forward espically concerning their relationship with other organisations.

Some RSF supporters online refer to the main issue between themselves and the 32CSM being that the latter do not recognise the Governmental Authority of the CIRA and while I have never heard anyone say this off the computer, it does go some way in explaining how RSF arrived at such a juncture.

To somehow suggest that an elitist Army Council is the living embodiment of the legitimate Irish government only suggests that the Irish people are beyond choosing their own destiny and government. It has given rise to a serious problem of elitism which has often been to the disadvantage of RSF - who in the right circumstances may have plenty to offer.

It was very clear an elitist attitude towards other political groups was being strengthened around the times of the policing debates when the IRSP, 32CSM and others began to sit down both openly and privately to discuss a strategy and a way forward for Irish Republicanism.

RSF did not attend one of the policing meetings organised by the 'Concerned Republicans' group, although individuals may have. This stems far beyond the issue of 'legitimate governments', it is purposely exclusive. RSF could have may well used the platform provided by others to put forward their own politics.

The broad front is often mentioned as something RSF will not partake in. That is understandable but there is no broad front being proposed - just collective action on issues of importance to modern Republicanism. No one has been asked to sacrifice core principles.

Whilst I do respect RSF's position on the 1st Dáil, what does it mean to the average Joe on the street? Unless non-Provisional Republicanism is made relevant then i am in no doubt it will continue to be stagnant in its present state.

I will refer to this particular piece from the RSF code of conduct as it appears in 'Bother na Poblachta' (RSF 2007, p.30).
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/6619/rsfen3.jpg

While this may be and has been the case in dealing with the non-Provisional organisations, RSF members have indeed addressed events attended by members of the IRSP, PSF, 32CSM and others. It was recently covered in an RSF publication that RSF attended a meeting seamingly with the intention of heckling Gerry Adams. Can we, as honest and decent Republicans honestly justify this as the path forward?

[Daithí]

Good and interesting read.

Iam sure the IRSP and 32CSM are'nt too pushed about this shred from the code of conduct.

[Erin_go_bragh]

Brillaint post Vox and will be noted. To be honest thats RSFs problem. Tell me this do you have a copy of Bother na Poblachta to upload?

[Daithí]

Not nit picking but is it Bothar na Poblachta?

[quirk]

I have just saw in the past few days a debate on the IRB board between members of RSF on whether the ban on participating with other organisations should be dropped at their upcoming Ard Fheis.

[quirk]

To claim that they will not work with the 32CSM because we recognise the six or 26 county states is a bizarre statement to make as a simple glance at our constitution on http://32csm.org/const.htm would show that this is not the case.

1(f). That recognising the denial of national sovereignty to the Irish people through British occupation of part of the national territory; we hold that all administrations and assemblies purporting to act as lawful government for the Irish people, or otherwise functioning as partitionist entities, to be illegal under international law as they usurp Irish sovereignty.

I cant speak for the IRSP but I would guess that their position is similar.

[JPL]

Not nit picking but is it Bothar na Poblachta?

Road of the Republic? Not sure, never heard of it.

[Nijinsky]

To claim that they will not work with the 32CSM because we recognise the six or 26 county states is a bizarre statement to make as a simple glance at our constitution on http://32csm.org/const.htm would show that this is not the case.

1(f). That recognising the denial of national sovereignty to the Irish people through British occupation of part of the national territory; we hold that all administrations and assemblies purporting to act as lawful government for the Irish people, or otherwise functioning as partitionist entities, to be illegal under international law as they usurp Irish sovereignty.

I cant speak for the IRSP but I would guess that their position is similar.

I think RSFs attitude is that anyone that didnt walk out from the 86 Ard Fheis with them is basically a traitor. By not walking out all those that went on to form the 32csm etc had recognised the legitimacy of the Free State in their eyes. As for the IRSP, their views on them would go back to the stickys/provo split.

[Daithí]

I think RSFs attitude is that anyone that didnt walk out from the 86 Ard Fheis with them is basically a traitor. By not walking out all those that went on to form the 32csm etc had recognised the legitimacy of the Free State in their eyes. As for the IRSP, their views on them would go back to the stickys/provo split.

I would agree with that on the 32CSM part anyway. An RSF member I spoke to claims that the 32CSM are indeed traitors for that reason.

[scarface]

Coming in contact with some Republican Sinn Féin members and supporters during the election this year I was perplexed by some of the positions being put forward espically concerning their relationship with other organisations.

Some RSF supporters online refer to the main issue between themselves and the 32CSM being that the latter do not recognise the Governmental Authority of the CIRA and while I have never heard anyone say this off the computer, it does go some way in explaining how RSF arrived at such a juncture.

To somehow suggest that an elitist Army Council is the living embodiment of the legitimate Irish government only suggests that the Irish people are beyond choosing their own destiny and government. It has given rise to a serious problem of elitism which has often been to the disadvantage of RSF - who in the right circumstances may have plenty to offer.

It was very clear an elitist attitude towards other political groups was being strengthened around the times of the policing debates when the IRSP, 32CSM and others began to sit down both openly and privately to discuss a strategy and a way forward for Irish Republicanism.

RSF did not attend one of the policing meetings organised by the 'Concerned Republicans' group, although individuals may have. This stems far beyond the issue of 'legitimate governments', it is purposely exclusive. RSF could have may well used the platform provided by others to put forward their own politics.

The broad front is often mentioned as something RSF will not partake in. That is understandable but there is no broad front being proposed - just collective action on issues of importance to modern Republicanism. No one has been asked to sacrifice core principles.

Whilst I do respect RSF's position on the 1st Dáil, what does it mean to the average Joe on the street? Unless non-Provisional Republicanism is made relevant then i am in no doubt it will continue to be stagnant in its present state.

I will refer to this particular piece from the RSF code of conduct as it appears in 'Bother na Poblachta' (RSF 2007, p.30).
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/6619/rsfen3.jpg

While this may be and has been the case in dealing with the non-Provisional organisations, RSF members have indeed addressed events attended by members of the IRSP, PSF, 32CSM and others. It was recently covered in an RSF publication that RSF attended a meeting seamingly with the intention of heckling Gerry Adams. Can we, as honest and decent Republicans honestly justify this as the path forward?

RSF has been on platforms with other republicans but what i found unacceptable about the whole republican unity thing was their support for candidates who would have took their seats in stormont(that's a core principle out the window) and the joint bodenstown that smacks of a broad front and their is no way RSF would get involved with that

[quirk]

I think RSFs attitude is that anyone that didnt walk out from the 86 Ard Fheis with them is basically a traitor. By not walking out all those that went on to form the 32csm etc had recognised the legitimacy of the Free State in their eyes. As for the IRSP, their views on them would go back to the stickys/provo split.

I think you are right in that is their attitude. However it doesn't stand up to scrutiny as the fact is the 32CSM was not formed to 1997. Alot of members in the 32CSM were not around in 1986, I myself was only 6 so I don't know how I can be labeled as recognising Leinster house based on this.

The 32CSM are a new organisation but even if they did recognise it in 1986, they don't now. Our constitution is clear. Organisation's can change and evolve and if we are to say that because an organisation at one time supported one policy they should always be labeled with that then we would still label RSF as duel monarchists.

[Nijinsky]

I think you are right in that is their attitude. However it doesn't stand up to scrutiny as the fact is the 32CSM was not formed to 1997. Alot of members in the 32CSM were not around in 1986, I myself was only 6 so I don't know how I can be labeled as recognising Leinster house based on this.

The 32CSM are a new organisation but even if they did recognise it in 1986, they don't now. Our constitution is clear. Organisation's can change and evolve and if we are to say that because an organisation at one time supported one policy they should always be labeled with that then we would still label RSF as duel monarchists.

You are quite right Quirk but the point is that the key people involved in setting up the 32csm and RIRA were around in 1986 and were key people in both SF and the IRA at the time and stayed and supported the decision to end abstentionism in the 26 counties and they did not walk out and join RSF. It is because of that that they are viewed as traitors and untrustworthy.

[Vox Populi]

RSF has been on platforms with other republicans but what i found unacceptable about the whole republican unity thing was their support for candidates who would have took their seats in stormont(that's a core principle out the window) and the joint bodenstown that smacks of a broad front and their is no way RSF would get involved with that
I'm unsure wether Gerry McGeough was endorsed by the 32CSM or Concerned Republicans but he certainly wasn't endorsed by the IRSP. The issue isn't wether or not he would take his seat in Stormont but the fact the man is a borderline fascist - who spoke at the RSF Bundoran commemoration last year funnily enough.

There was no broad front at, before or after Bodenstown, just a joint commemoration to display Republican Unity at the resting place of Wolfe Tone. No one was asked to sacrifice principles by marching, no one was asked to join a broad front or to agree a set of demands for the organisation of a broad front.

[quirk]

I would agree with Vox completely. Talking about marches and how this means principles must be sacrificed does this mean that RSF sacrificed principles when they participated in the anti war march in Dublin before the invasion of Iraq. After all groups such as PSF and SWP also took part. If participating in such a march did not require sacrifice of principles then why would attendence at bodenstown have done so?

[quirk]

You are quite right Quirk but the point is that the key people involved in setting up the 32csm and RIRA were around in 1986 and were key people in both SF and the IRA at the time and stayed and supported the decision to end abstentionism in the 26 counties and they did not walk out and join RSF. It is because of that that they are viewed as traitors and untrustworthy.

Yes I understand that but the 32CSM was set up as a new organisation and those who joined supported our constitution despite what they may have previously believed. If someone is to be judged by there previous actions then what about the many members of RSF who stayed with PSF initially or who have even been members of the 32CSM? As for someone being sullied by there one time support for participation in Leinster house why should this be seen as a principle yet recognition of the courts as a tactic?

[Nijinsky]

Yes I understand that but the 32CSM was set up as a new organisation and those who joined supported our constitution despite what they may have previously believed. If someone is to be judged by there previous actions then what about the many members of RSF who stayed with PSF initially or who have even been members of the 32CSM? As for someone being sullied by there one time support for participation in Leinster house why should this be seen as a principle yet recognition of the courts as a tactic?

Quirk I am not arguing with you. I think the RSF position on all of this is totally illogical.

Aside from their view of abstentionism and those that supported ending it, the 32csm and others dont, in the eys of RSF, abide by the law of the Republic (i.e the CIRA army council). Those that dont, are in the eyes of RSF, traitors to the Irish republic.

As for abstentionism and recognising the courts you are again spot on. They are both tactics.

[quirk]

Sorry comrade I was adressing myself to RSF. Should have made it more clear.

[Nijinsky]

Sorry comrade I was adressing myself to RSF. Should have made it more clear.


No probs

[scarface]

I'm unsure wether Gerry McGeough was endorsed by the 32CSM or Concerned Republicans but he certainly wasn't endorsed by the IRSP. The issue isn't wether or not he would take his seat in Stormont but the fact the man is a borderline fascist - who spoke at the RSF Bundoran commemoration last year funnily enough.

There was no broad front at, before or after Bodenstown, just a joint commemoration to display Republican Unity at the resting place of Wolfe Tone. No one was asked to sacrifice principles by marching, no one was asked to join a broad front or to agree a set of demands for the organisation of a broad front.

you left out the fact that Ruairi O Bradaigh refused to go on the platform because mcGeough was there and they endorsed Davy Hyland and he said he would take his seat

[Nijinsky]

you left out the fact that Ruairi O Bradaigh refused to go on the platform because mcGeough was there and they endorsed Davy Hyland and he said he would take his seat

Was he afraid that he would be contaminated or something?

[scarface]

You are quite right Quirk but the point is that the key people involved in setting up the 32csm and RIRA were around in 1986 and were key people in both SF and the IRA at the time and stayed and supported the decision to end abstentionism in the 26 counties and they did not walk out and join RSF. It is because of that that they are viewed as traitors and untrustworthy.

and also that a 'key member' of the reals was brought along by adams in 86 to be the strong man and to issue the threats

[quirk]

and also that a 'key member' of the reals was brought along by adams in 86 to be the strong man and to issue the threats

The 'reals' didnt exist then.

[scarface]

The 'reals' didnt exist then.

i know they did'nt i should of said a man who went on to be a key member of the reals threatened our people

[Vox Populi]

The IRSM has suffered a lot more than RSF at the hands of the Provisionals, espically in the jails prior to 1997. That however, has not prevented the IRSP openly engaging and discussing the future of Republicanism.

[Nijinsky]

i know they did'nt i should of said a man who went on to be a key member of the reals threatened our people

And many from the RSF side done likewise

[quirk]

But the issue is that they refuse to work with others based on the assertion that these other organisations recognise partitionist assemblies as legitimate and because they claim to represent republican opinion. On what do RSF base this assertion?

[Kat]

which assertion quirk? other organisations DO recognise partitionist assemblies as legitimate or that rsf represents republican opinion? rsf represents those of the assuredness and militancy and strength of charactor of people like Dan Keating,

Why does everybody care so much that a bunch of elitists wont unite? RSFs unity should be a non issue, you should have left them behind by now, like you have been threatening to for years. No offense Vox, I think yer a really smart guy, but threads like this get on my nerves. I support RSF, I am not a member but it seems to me that everybodys time could be better served by positive action rather than constantly lamenting about rsf elitism. Your scorn and your own elitism fairly drip from your continuous posts on the subjest, this goes for quirk too.

RSF is not standing in the way of anyones unity, nor are they wishing others any ill. would but others return the favor, perhaps some form of unity might result.

[Liam Lynch]

The attitude of different candidates who stood in the election as to whether they would take their seats or not is a red herring. The salient point in that whole election was the total unpreparedness of republicans to contest it. This is why divisions and contradictions existed, not because they were adopted policies but because they were not thought through. And this is the basic message of the republican unity initiative; sit down together, discuss it and act in an agreed and pragmatic manner. I've no doubt that if such a course was taken a more coordinated, consistent and successful approach would have been achieved. The issue of a republican mandate is not going to go away.

[quirk]

The problem is not that they don't want to unite but rather there reason for doing so is wrong. Both assertions are wrong in reference to the 32CSM anyway. Earlier I quoted our constitution to prove we do not recognise these partitionist assemblies as legal so why is this being used as a basis for not working with us. As for representing public opinion I am aware RSF do but so do the 32CSM and IRSP. Why should them stating this prevent unity?

As for criticising others for bringing this up well I will never again speak on the subject when the lies that the 32CSM recognise Leinster house cease. Because that is what it is - a lie. Surely making this claim about us and saying we dont represent republican opinion is worse than anyone saying RSF are elitist (which is a claim I have never made anyway).

[Vox Populi]

What we're looking at is the way forward for non-Provisional Republicanism. We've been debating the future for months in private and in public, the questions I put forward in this thread are based on what I believe to be sound analysis and research.

The issue extends beyond the Republicans United project, which it should be noted ceased to exist in the form it had previously taken at the Wolfe Tone commemoration. There is no broad front being proposed, no organisational unity and no set of proposals - just joint actions which have proven to be highly successful and well attended. No one has been asked to abandon principles to attend the Conway Mill policing meeting or any other event.

I've stood on picket lines with RSF in Dublin, were myself and other supporters of the IRSP have been ignored because our affiliations are no secret A whole page of Saoirse was dedicated to an RSF POW picket last July were members of the IRSP outnumbered RSF by a ratio of 1:2, yet they weren't given a mention on the day or later in Saoirse when the picture clearly depicted the majority of people holding IRSP posters.

RSF, it appears, have a ban on attending meetings organised by the IRSP or 32CSM but can attend PSF organised events to heckle Gerry Adams - can that, Kat, honestly be called the future path for Irish Republicanism?

[Liam Lynch]

which assertion quirk? other organisations DO recognise partitionist assemblies as legitimate or that rsf represents republican opinion? rsf represents those of the assuredness and militancy and strength of charactor of people like Dan Keating,

Why does everybody care so much that a bunch of elitists wont unite? RSFs unity should be a non issue, you should have left them behind by now, like you have been threatening to for years. No offense Vox, I think yer a really smart guy, but threads like this get on my nerves. I support RSF, I am not a member but it seems to me that everybodys time could be better served by positive action rather than constantly lamenting about rsf elitism. Your scorn and your own elitism fairly drip from your continuous posts on the subjest, this goes for quirk too.

RSF is not standing in the way of anyones unity, nor are they wishing others any ill. would but others return the favor, perhaps some form of unity might result.


But the problem again Kat is this notion that being true to your principles is more important than advancing them. Dan Keating RIP did indeed stick to his principles but after 105 noble years he died with his principles realisation further away than ever. People have posted various parts of RSF motions and policy positions but the one that sums up the point I'm making is the one where it states that cooperation should be avoided so that RSF can be seen as the ONLY group pursuing the establishment of the Republic. Which is more important; the perception that RSF are the only organisation pursuing the republic or the actuality of progress toward said republic?

[q9876]

Can anyone say if RSF are open to people of a younger generation joining the party , ??

[quirk]

Yes you can join from 17 or 18 as far as I am aware.

[q9876]

Over the election me and friends gave hand with posters , we were eager to get involved in POW's protest but after the election , no phone calls what so ever , thought maybe we weren't staunch enough ??

[scarface]

Can anyone say if RSF are open to people of a younger generation joining the party , ??

yes i am a member and im 19

[scarface]

Over the election me and friends gave hand with posters , we were eager to get involved in POW's protest but after the election , no phone calls what so ever , thought maybe we weren't staunch enough ??

that's a pity they did'nt ring back they should have are you still interested in getting involved

[scarface]

Yes you can join from 17 or 18 as far as I am aware.

you can join from age 16

[quirk]

From the debate going on at present on the IRBB it seems that this issue is indeed going to be brought up at this years RSF Ard Fheis. Obviously there are some within RSF who think that the ban on working with other groups is unnecessary.

http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=7838&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Nijinsky]

From the debate going on at present on the IRBB it seems that this issue is indeed going to be brought up at this years RSF Ard Fheis. Obviously there are some within RSF who think that the ban on working with other groups is unnecessary.

http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=7838&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

According to one poster quirk, "I think the only other Republican group worth taking about is the 32CSM. Sinn Féin (RSF) does seem to have a bit of a problem with them - paticularly their failure to recognise the Governmental Authority of Óglaigh na hÉireann and the Law of the Republic."

[FTA69]

or that rsf represents republican opinion?

It represents a segment of Republican opinion. And anyway, you're dead right. People do have a tendency to get hung up on RSF as if they are the be-all and end-all of Republican unity. They are a small section of the broader movement, and are entitled to do whatever they want. There is nothing stopping other Republicans working together.

[Mellows1922]

They are a small section of the broader movement, and are entitled to do whatever they want. There is nothing stopping other Republicans working together.

Yeah I agree with this 100%, I'm always hesitant to get involved with discussion about unity among anti GFA Republicans, because, frankly it's not my business, but I do think people get way too overinvolved and hung up on what RSF do and say.

If people think that they are not responding in the way they would like over the whole unity issue, then they should just organise without them (which I know is happening anyway), browbeating them with the same arguments over and over again isn't going to change their position. They know the arguments and they know where they stand. They are not renowned for adapting to change, and that isn't a dig, it's just how things are, they believe in sticking by the strategies they have always stuck by. Rightly or wrongly.

[quirk]

It represents a segment of Republican opinion. And anyway, you're dead right. People do have a tendency to get hung up on RSF as if they are the be-all and end-all of Republican unity. They are a small section of the broader movement, and are entitled to do whatever they want. There is nothing stopping other Republicans working together.

Will Éirigi participate in republican unity do you think?

[John]

I've wondered about Éirigi too quite a bit quirk. Any member from them able to respond? Emailed them on the topic a ways back along with other questions and that was the only one not answered. I'm guessing since they were just formed at the time it was not decided on yet and I never followed up on it.

[Carlos McJackle]

and also that a 'key member' of the reals was brought along by adams in 86 to be the strong man and to issue the threats

that is untrue . The man in question ( who i have little time for quite frankly) was used to assure concerned members of sinn fein that no ceasefire or entry into stormont would ever happen . Other individuals issued threats . As the man in question was actively engaged at that time in securing dumps for tonnes of libyan arms that were arriving in the country such a scenario seemed impossible from his point of view in particular.

Its also the case that the man in question attended the 1997 RSF ard feis as an invited guest aliong with others . Why the **** invite him and others in the first place ? RSF would have been quite happy to have these people in their ranks and fully expected them to join . They also expected them to get down on their knees and apologise for not walking out with them . It was a great shock to them that they didnt . Nobody should feel the need to apologise for prosecuting an armed campaign against their countrys occupation . Their actions in 1986 are not the issue in view of the invites to the ard feis and other attempts to co-opt them into RSF/CIRA structures . That is a bull**** smokescreen . Its about hegemony and a traditional sinn fein supremacist desire to sideline alternatives within the republican base .
Diversity within the seperatist base should viewed as a strength , not a threat .

[Carlos McJackle]

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/6619/rsfen3.jpg



and this is another pile of bollocks . 32 CSM does not recognise the legitimacy of any puppet parliament on this partitoned island . I wouldnt be a member of 32 csm if that was the case . Furthermore its explicitly stated within our constitution which is online and easily checked , as Quirk has pointed out . So its not even well thought out bull**** .
Various trade unions and neutrality/anti war groups do recognise the free state as a legitimate entity , the north too but RSF would align itself with them rather than us ?
Youll also notice the original ard feis motion was put in 1999 , well after the GFA split in the provos and after RSF attempts to co-opt 32 csm members failed . Its got nothing to do with people not walking out in 86 . Its about people having an alternative republican analysis and rsf being typical shinners , doing what shinners do ..
RSF are members of PANA . If we joined PANA would RSF withdraw from that broad front ? Their ard feis motions seem to make clear theyd have to .
The position is illogical and riddled with inconsistencies . Thats the last thing republicanism needs in an already dreadfully confused situation .

[Cael]

If you dont recognise the Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic and the Law of the Republic, then you implicitly recognise English Crown law in Ireland, as no society can exist without law. All this stuff about a general will to order is illogical. Any Revolutionary army needs to give lawful orders. The Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic is vested in the Continuity Army Council of the IRA, as ordered by Dáil Éireann in its Proclamation of 1938.

[Cael]

The attitude of different candidates who stood in the election as to whether they would take their seats or not is a red herring. The salient point in that whole election was the total unpreparedness of republicans to contest it. This is why divisions and contradictions existed, not because they were adopted policies but because they were not thought through. And this is the basic message of the republican unity initiative; sit down together, discuss it and act in an agreed and pragmatic manner. I've no doubt that if such a course was taken a more coordinated, consistent and successful approach would have been achieved. The issue of a republican mandate is not going to go away.

Liam, you have taken the name of a General of the Army of the Republic, who stated clearly that he would live by No Other Law but the Law of the Republic. I take it then, that you share his opinion. There is really nothing for Irish Republicans to discuss. Our duty is to the Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic and to the Continuity Army Council. Dan Keating did not need to discuss this, and nor do we.

[Kat]

Yeah I agree with this 100%, I'm always hesitant to get involved with discussion about unity among anti GFA Republicans, because, frankly it's not my business, but I do think people get way too overinvolved and hung up on what RSF do and say.
If people think that they are not responding in the way they would like over the whole unity issue, then they should just organise without them (which I know is happening anyway), browbeating them with the same arguments over and over again isn't going to change their position. They know the arguments and they know where they stand. They are not renowned for adapting to change, and that isn't a dig, it's just how things are, they believe in sticking by the strategies they have always stuck by. Rightly or wrongly.



Thanks Mellows, that was well enough said, I guess. In any case you bring up a couple of good points.The adapting to change thing... Here is my take, we have not yet seen where loyalty to founding principle will take the movement, cause frankly it is generally well corrupted and unrecognizable by the time people get fed up enough to go back to square one, pick up the pieces and begin again from the roots, RSF is endeavoring to not lose those roots this time. It seems to me, the true enemy to Irish sovereignty and republicanism today has not been resistance to compromise, but compromise itself.

[Kat]

But the problem again Kat is this notion that being true to your principles is more important than advancing them. Dan Keating RIP did indeed stick to his principles but after 105 noble years he died with his principles realisation further away than ever. People have posted various parts of RSF motions and policy positions but the one that sums up the point I'm making is the one where it states that cooperation should be avoided so that RSF can be seen as the ONLY group pursuing the establishment of the Republic. Which is more important; the perception that RSF are the only organisation pursuing the republic or the actuality of progress toward said republic?




In my mind Liam the only progress toward the republic will be made by those with thier principles intact. It is not by Dan Keatings doing that Irish sovereignty was set back on three seperate occassions in his lifetime by people who believed that principles be damned, progress is the real goal... in those cases this attitude has lead not to progress, but to partition and increasingly unremovable and insurmountable tethers to british rule.

Dan Keating died a man of undisputable integrity. A man whom, if surrounded by people of equal integrity, might well have died in a free Ireland.

I think it sad that you deliberately belittle rsf when you state that the you think what is most important to them is the perception of being seen as the only org pursuing a republic...

what rsf are seen as matters little to them. what they are is faithful to thier principles despite the fact that in reality the opposite of what you say is true, adapting thier principles to a wider common denominator could theoretically boost thier visibility, and thus would make them seen to more people as being the only org pursuing the republic.

[Liam Lynch]

Liam, you have taken the name of a General of the Army of the Republic, who stated clearly that he would live by No Other Law but the Law of the Republic. I take it then, that you share his opinion. There is really nothing for Irish Republicans to discuss. Our duty is to the Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic and to the Continuity Army Council. Dan Keating did not need to discuss this, and nor do we.

But Liam Lynch went to war to attain the realisation of his principles, he didn't just stick to them. This is the whole point that seems to be lost here, its not about principles per se but what you do to realise them. As republicans we're not going to end partition by sticking to our principles but engaging in effective strategies to see them realised. This is where the unity project is based, on the issues of tasks, not principles.

[FTA69]

Will Éirigi participate in republican unity do you think?

I don't even live in Ireland anymore so I'm not in a position to speak for them.

Cael,

If you dont recognise the Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic and the Law of the Republic, then you implicitly recognise English Crown law in Ireland

The Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic is vested in the Continuity Army Council of the IRA

So basically anyone who doesn't support Ruairi Ó Brádaigh and his band of merry men is implicitly recognising crown law in Ireland according to you?

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]In my mind Liam the only progress toward the republic will be made by those with thier principles intact. It is not by Dan Keatings doing that Irish sovereignty was set back on three seperate occassions in his lifetime by people who believed that principles be damned, progress is the real goal... in those cases this attitude has lead not to progress, but to partition and increasingly unremovable and insurmountable tethers to british rule.


But there is no progress toward the republic, its moving further away than ever before. Sticking to ones principles will not impact on this drift. You have to develop political strategies to move your principles forward. And I find it alarming that you should say that our sovereignty has been set back on three separate occasions, it has been continually set back since the occupation. But that has manifested itself in various ways throughout its history and current strategies are required to deal with its current manifestation.

Dan Keating died a man of undisputable integrity. A man whom, if surrounded by people of equal integrity, might well have died in a free Ireland.

We're not fighting people of integrity, cliches are meaningless to them. A contemporary of Dan's, Tom Barry, said it perfectly if your enemy goes down into the abyss to defend its position down after them you have to go. That's not the same as standing on the ivory tower of principle throwing down cliches at them. Barry went down principles in tact his main concern was the practical necessities of what he had to do. We need to do the same.

I think it sad that you deliberately belittle rsf when you state that the you think what is most important to them is the perception of being seen as the only org pursuing a republic...

Bull****. The motion referred to clearly implies this and any worthwhile debate would make the same observation on the implications and reasoning behind it.

what rsf are seen as matters little to them. what they are is faithful to thier principles despite the fact that in reality the opposite of what you say is true, adapting thier principles to a wider common denominator could theoretically boost thier visibility, and thus would make them seen to more people as being the only org pursuing the republic.

You see this is what I find astounding. If RSF are their principles are you saying it means little to them what the people think of those principles? Do you not see the grave disservice that this position does to those principles?

Tell me where are they adopting their principles to a wider common denominator?

[Nijinsky]

I don't even live in Ireland anymore so I'm not in a position to speak for them.

Cael,





So basically anyone who doesn't support Ruairi Ó Brádaigh and his band of merry men is implicitly recognising crown law in Ireland according to you?

Thats exactly it. Which is why thay have been so irrelevant since their formation in 1986

[Joseph Pariah]

If you dont recognise the Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic and the Law of the Republic, then you implicitly recognise English Crown law in Ireland, as no society can exist without law. All this stuff about a general will to order is illogical. Any Revolutionary army needs to give lawful orders. The Governmental Authority of the Irish Republic is vested in the Continuity Army Council of the IRA, as ordered by Dáil Éireann in its Proclamation of 1938.

Space Cadet.

[Cael]

If Sinn Féin are irrelevant, then why spend your time commenting on them?

[Cael]

Space Cadet.


So you think a Revolutionary Army does not need a law to operate under? This is exactly the attitude that led the Adamsites to accept their prisoners being released under "licence" to the English Crown with "criminal records." Adams saw no other law but English Crown law (which is logical if you dont recognise the Law of the Republic), and by Crown law Irish soldiers are merely politically motivated criminals.

[Cael]

[QUOTE=Kat;14935]



But there is no progress toward the republic, its moving further away than ever before. Sticking to ones principles will not impact on this drift. You have to develop political strategies to move your principles forward. And I find it alarming that you should say that our sovereignty has been set back on three separate occasions, it has been continually set back since the occupation. But that has manifested itself in various ways throughout its history and current strategies are required to deal with its current manifestation.



We're not fighting people of integrity, cliches are meaningless to them. A contemporary of Dan's, Tom Barry, said it perfectly if your enemy goes down into the abyss to defend its position down after them you have to go. That's not the same as standing on the ivory tower of principle throwing down cliches at them. Barry went down principles in tact his main concern was the practical necessities of what he had to do. We need to do the same.

.

Bull****. The motion referred to clearly implies this and any worthwhile debate would make the same observation on the implications and reasoning behind it.



You see this is what I find astounding. If RSF are their principles are you saying it means little to them what the people think of those principles? Do you not see the grave disservice that this position does to those principles?

Tell me where are they adopting their principles to a wider common denominator?


You dont get people to see the merits of the Law of the Republic by pretending it doesnt exist. Nor do you promote your principals by changing them to the taste of the lowest common denominator (PSF have tried this, which the result that they now have gravitated to the "principals" of the enemy). I have a lot of respect for people in 32CSM, but Im afraid their position is is largely based on trying to find a philosophical justification for their leaders recognising the free state for several years and abandoning the Law of the Republic, then turning around and saying that they dont recognise the free state, but dont recognise any other law either. Do they really expect Irish society to subsist with no law whatsoever? Even English Crown law would be better than that. It would be much better if they returned to the Law of the Republic (the only truely effective weapon against English Crown law). There is no shame in this. Quite the opposite. There is no question of saying sorry to anybody. Becoming part of the Law of the Republic is the right, and indeed the duty of every Irish citizen, and is a highly personal decision. There is no question of feeling defeated or wrong or fearing that anyone in Sinn Féin might say "I told you so" - its not their business, it your business and nobody else's. The Law of the Republic belongs to all Irish citizens equally.

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE=Liam Lynch;14938]


[QUOTE]You dont get people to see the merits of the Law of the Republic by pretending it doesnt exist.

But you haven't demonstrated it exists nor indeed functions beyond an abstract argument to it. If this Law is to be central to republican thinking then you must demonstrate its political relevance to the struggle to end British Law in Ireland. Its not enough to say I'M loyal to the Law of the Republic and it in itself is a mechanism to end partition. And as James Stephens said, when a national emergency is at hand conventional laws can be set aside.

Nor do you promote your principals by changing them to the taste of the lowest common denominator (PSF have tried this, which the result that they now have gravitated to the "principals" of the enemy).

This is the repeated fallacy which RSF personnel, who reject unity, hide behind as a strawman argument. No one is asking anyone to abandon principles but you are being asked to cooperate on tasks that can realise those principles.


I have a lot of respect for people in 32CSM, but Im afraid their position is is largely based on trying to find a philosophical justification for their leaders recognising the free state for several years and abandoning the Law of the Republic, then turning around and saying that they dont recognise the free state, but dont recognise any other law either.

Firstly our position is clearly set out in our constitution, our publications and our consistent strategy and policy documents which are directed toward a relevant contemporary engagement with the Irish people and the political establishments which represent them. Our right to freedom is based in our people's right to that freedom and not an abstract, technical manifestation of it.

Secondly our position on the issue of republican unity is that diversity can coexist with cooperation and that such cooperation is essential if the republican movement is to move out of its present malaise. The issue of abstentionism from Leinster House and how that impacts on the current debate is not a matter to be dealt with in absolutist terms but on terms of a simple principle that a negative adherence to a specific principle undermines that principle and as such should not be undertaken. The issue in 1986 was not abstentionism, but abstentionism as an issue to play out a leadership power struggle. And this is why abstentionism as currently defined by RSF is wholly negative.

The arguments for this negative abstentionism and adherence to Republican Law leads to the preposterous scenarios of not paying TV licenses, paying tax to either establishment and other such cul de sac approaches which renders the original contention as laughable. And this is because RSF have covered themselves in a comfort blanket of constitutional prohibitions and technical stances rather than in solid and relevant political policies. The Law Of the Republic does not function that's why it needs to be reconstituted and not adhered to in a manner which stifles its propagation.


Do they really expect Irish society to subsist with no law whatsoever?

But Irish society is subsisting with law, but its not the law that we want. Pretending that republican law can substitute current law by mere virtue of its claimed existence is nonsensical.


Even English Crown law would be better than that. It would be much better if they returned to the Law of the Republic (the only truely effective weapon against English Crown law). There is no shame in this. Quite the opposite. There is no question of saying sorry to anybody. Becoming part of the Law of the Republic is the right, and indeed the duty of every Irish citizen, and is a highly personal decision. There is no question of feeling defeated or wrong or fearing that anyone in Sinn Féin might say "I told you so" - its not their business, it your business and nobody else's. The Law of the Republic belongs to all Irish citizens equally.

The Law of the Republic does not function because a foreign power with indigenous support has suppressed it. The right to resist that suppression remains present, it has to, because the law we wish to establish does not function because of that suppression. And the focus for republicans now is to move away from abstract theorising and to put in place viable political strategies that can actually impact on the British presence in our country. And as for 'I told you so' personally if they are unable to say to me 'I did so' I'd laugh with scorn at them.

[Joseph Pariah]

You dont get people to see the merits of the Law of the Republic by pretending it doesnt exist. Nor do you promote your principals by changing them to the taste of the lowest common denominator (PSF have tried this, which the result that they now have gravitated to the "principals" of the enemy). I have a lot of respect for people in 32CSM, but Im afraid their position is is largely based on trying to find a philosophical justification for their leaders recognising the free state for several years and abandoning the Law of the Republic, then turning around and saying that they dont recognise the free state, but dont recognise any other law either. Do they really expect Irish society to subsist with no law whatsoever? Even English Crown law would be better than that. It would be much better if they returned to the Law of the Republic (the only truely effective weapon against English Crown law). There is no shame in this. Quite the opposite. There is no question of saying sorry to anybody. Becoming part of the Law of the Republic is the right, and indeed the duty of every Irish citizen, and is a highly personal decision. There is no question of feeling defeated or wrong or fearing that anyone in Sinn Féin might say "I told you so" - its not their business, it your business and nobody else's. The Law of the Republic belongs to all Irish citizens equally.

What is or are the Laws of the Republic? When did we (the Irish people) vote for them? How come the guardians of this law are an inept paramilitary with criminal elements that bludgeons young men to death with shovels? Is this law capitalist in nature or socialist etc etc etc?

[Bacon-Egg]

Cael, are you for real.

I missed reading your pie in the sky posts! Its good to see you have wised up any!

[Cael]

But Liam Lynch went to war to attain the realisation of his principles, he didn't just stick to them. This is the whole point that seems to be lost here, its not about principles per se but what you do to realise them. As republicans we're not going to end partition by sticking to our principles but engaging in effective strategies to see them realised. This is where the unity project is based, on the issues of tasks, not principles.

I believe you are wrong there, a chara. Liam Lynch was a General in the Army of the actually existing Republic. He wasnt fighting to establish the Republic and the Law of the Republic, but to defend what was already established. There are only two laws in Ireland: English Crown law and The Law of the Republic. You must decide which one you are going to live by.

[Bacon-Egg]

but u have said if you dont agree with the RSF you are a brit?

[Liam Lynch]

I believe you are wrong there, a chara. Liam Lynch was a General in the Army of the actually existing Republic. He wasnt fighting to establish the Republic and the Law of the Republic, but to defend what was already established. There are only two laws in Ireland: English Crown law and The Law of the Republic. You must decide which one you are going to live by.

He was fighting to secure Irish law. And the choice which faces us as republicans is not one between conflicting laws but how we choose to secure the law we want.

[Cael]

[QUOTE=Cael;14959][QUOTE=Liam Lynch;14938]




But you haven't demonstrated it exists nor indeed functions beyond an abstract argument to it. If this Law is to be central to republican thinking then you must demonstrate its political relevance to the struggle to end British Law in Ireland. Its not enough to say I'M loyal to the Law of the Republic and it in itself is a mechanism to end partition. And as James Stephens said, when a national emergency is at hand conventional laws can be set aside.



This is the repeated fallacy which RSF personnel, who reject unity, hide behind as a strawman argument. No one is asking anyone to abandon principles but you are being asked to cooperate on tasks that can realise those principles.




Firstly our position is clearly set out in our constitution, our publications and our consistent strategy and policy documents which are directed toward a relevant contemporary engagement with the Irish people and the political establishments which represent them. Our right to freedom is based in our people's right to that freedom and not an abstract, technical manifestation of it.

Secondly our position on the issue of republican unity is that diversity can coexist with cooperation and that such cooperation is essential if the republican movement is to move out of its present malaise. The issue of abstentionism from Leinster House and how that impacts on the current debate is not a matter to be dealt with in absolutist terms but on terms of a simple principle that a negative adherence to a specific principle undermines that principle and as such should not be undertaken. The issue in 1986 was not abstentionism, but abstentionism as an issue to play out a leadership power struggle. And this is why abstentionism as currently defined by RSF is wholly negative.

The arguments for this negative abstentionism and adherence to Republican Law leads to the preposterous scenarios of not paying TV licenses, paying tax to either establishment and other such cul de sac approaches which renders the original contention as laughable. And this is because RSF have covered themselves in a comfort blanket of constitutional prohibitions and technical stances rather than in solid and relevant political policies. The Law Of the Republic does not function that's why it needs to be reconstituted and not adhered to in a manner which stifles its propagation.




But Irish society is subsisting with law, but its not the law that we want. Pretending that republican law can substitute current law by mere virtue of its claimed existence is nonsensical.




The Law of the Republic does not function because a foreign power with indigenous support has suppressed it. The right to resist that suppression remains present, it has to, because the law we wish to establish does not function because of that suppression. And the focus for republicans now is to move away from abstract theorising and to put in place viable political strategies that can actually impact on the British presence in our country. And as for 'I told you so' personally if they are unable to say to me 'I did so' I'd laugh with scorn at them.


How do you demonstrate that a law exists? By living by it.

Its political relevance is as obvious today as it was on Easter Monday 1916: The only way to remove one law is to replace it with another law, i.e. Crown law cannot be replaced with nothing, or some vague "will to order," it can only be replaced with the Law of the Republic. If the Law of the Republic had not been proclamed in 1916, then it would have to be proclamed now - before any lawful Revolutionary activity could take place. Revolution always means replacing an old law with a new law.

On what is the freedom of the Irish people based, in your view? Are they free to choose English Crown law? Going on the GFA referenda, they would appear to have done so.

Im afraid your idea of abstentionism is wholely based on the negative connotations of the word "abstentionism" itself. If Gordon Brown declines an invitation to sit on the Army Council of CIRA, would you then define him as an "abstentionist?" Of course not. Then why do you ridiculously imply that Irish Republicans, who do not comtemplate participation in enemy imposed assemblies, operating under a law which attempts to usurp the functions of the Irish Republic, are to be defined as "abstentionists?"

The Law of the Republic can replace English Crown law by every Irish citizen, personally and individually, stepping out of English law and into the Law of the Republic. Thats all its takes. No guns are needed. Its a movement inside the mind. Once this movement has been made, no amount of enemy guns or armies can have effect.

[Cael]

He was fighting to secure Irish law. And the choice which faces us as republicans is not one between conflicting laws but how we choose to secure the law we want.

He was fighting to defend Irish law, already existing Irish law, as well you know. Do you think that the Minister for Defense, Cathal Brugha, was acting in a legal vacuum when he gave General Liam Lynch his commission?

If Crown law is not what you want, and there is some other law that you may wish to have instead, then you have a conflict of laws, i.e. a conflict between the law being forced on you and the one you want.

[Liam Lynch]

He was fighting to defend Irish law, already existing Irish law, as well you know. Do you think that the Minister for Defense, Cathal Brugha, was acting in a legal vacuum when he gave General Liam Lynch his commission?

If Crown law is not what you want, and there is some other law that you may wish to have instead, then you have a conflict of laws, i.e. a conflict between the law being forced on you and the one you want.

The law existed because it functioned but had to be secured because that function was under threat. Brugha was not acting in a legal vacuum but he was acting in a constitutional emergency because of the occupation. That's what determined his strategic actions and thats what must determine ours. The conflict is not a matter of choice, but of imposition of one law over another. Our task is not to choose law but to secure it.

[Nijinsky]

If Sinn Féin are irrelevant, then why spend your time commenting on them?

I never said that Sinn Fein were irrelevant Cael even though I am not a supporter of them. I said that RSF were irrelevant, as indeed are the CIRA. Sadly neither of them have any concept of reality

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE=Liam Lynch;14938]


I have a lot of respect for people in 32CSM, but Im afraid their position is is largely based on trying to find a philosophical justification for their leaders recognising the free state for several years and abandoning the Law of the Republic, .


this is balls . The vast majority of the 32 csm leadership were teenagers during that ard feis that nobody feels any need to invent a warped philosophy for, a few are even former RSF members that despaired of this metaphysical irrelevance and isolationist approach. Nobody feels any need to justify the direction taken by a failed sinn project that theyve made a clean ideological and structural break with long ago . 10 years ago in fact . As our website clearly points out we are not another sinn fein , nor do we seek to be or see the need for yet another one to exist .
If you regard people who spent the 86-97 period in the act of physically fighting the British occupation forces as simply having "abandoned the law of the republic" you live in an ideological vaccuum completely divorced from reality . And frankly you sound much happier in there so theres little point trying to coax you out . The CAC didnt even announce its existence untill mid 1996 so how the **** could anyone express loyalty to it for ten years when it didnt even announce it existed ? I was at the 86 ard feis and although I did not participate in the walk out I was present at the meeting in the west county hotel afterwards . A clear announcement was made that there was to be no military structure formed and that rsf supporters should continue assisting the ongoing national liberation struggle . Those were the precise words used , that was the directive issued . According to your logic then the RSF leadership instructed its membership to abandon the law of the republic

The work of physically establishing a sovereign independent republic as opposed to meta-theorising about one ad infinitum , along with ad infinitum retrospection about an ard feis an entire generation werent even born during ,can get along without you . Theres little point even pointing out to you the reactions of other republicans to this law of the republic stuff , ranging from derision to extreme irritation , and then asking you to ponder upon the Irish peoples general reaction to such a concept . And then evaluate the possibility of even the remotest success should we adopt that approach . You simply dont care , your fixated upon it and enjoy this stuff . You are the only republican Ive ever heard who uses the phrase endlessly . .

[Cael]

[QUOTE=Cael;14959]


this is balls . The vast majority of the 32 csm leadership were teenagers during that ard feis that nobody feels any need to invent a warped philosophy for, a few are even former RSF members that despaired of this metaphysical irrelevance and isolationist approach. Nobody feels any need to justify the direction taken by a failed sinn project that theyve made a clean ideological and structural break with long ago . 10 years ago in fact . As our website clearly points out we are not another sinn fein , nor do we seek to be or see the need for yet another one to exist .
If you regard people who spent the 86-97 period in the act of physically fighting the British occupation forces as simply having "abandoned the law of the republic" you live in an ideological vaccuum completely divorced from reality . And frankly you sound much happier in there so theres little point trying to coax you out . The CAC didnt even announce its existence untill mid 1996 so how the **** could anyone express loyalty to it for ten years when it didnt even announce it existed ? I was at the 86 ard feis and although I did not participate in the walk out I was present at the meeting in the west county hotel afterwards . A clear announcement was made that there was to be no military structure formed and that rsf supporters should continue assisting the ongoing national liberation struggle . Those were the precise words used , that was the directive issued . According to your logic then the RSF leadership instructed its membership to abandon the law of the republic

The work of physically establishing a sovereign independent republic as opposed to meta-theorising about one ad infinitum , along with ad infinitum retrospection about an ard feis an entire generation werent even born during ,can get along without you . Theres little point even pointing out to you the reactions of other republicans to this law of the republic stuff , ranging from derision to extreme irritation , and then asking you to ponder upon the Irish peoples general reaction to such a concept . And then evaluate the possibility of even the remotest success should we adopt that approach . You simply dont care , your fixated upon it and enjoy this stuff . You are the only republican Ive ever heard who uses the phrase endlessly . .


I wonder why certain people go on so much about Sinn Féin co-operation, when you reject everything Sinn Féin stands for? I note that while you have dismissed The Law of the Republic as "stuff" you have offered absolutely nothing to replace either it or English Crown law.

By the way, why would there be any need to "form" a military structure in 1986, when it had already existed since 1916? Besides, Sinn Féin is NOT a military body and, of course, will not be forming any military structure. The reconveining of the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis in the West county Hotel was done in accordance with The Law of the Republic.

How can you physically establish a Republic if you dont even have the courage to declare it?

[Vox Populi]

The Continuity IRA existed in 1916, but did not announce its formation until the 1990s?

[Cael]

I never said that Sinn Fein were irrelevant Cael even though I am not a supporter of them. I said that RSF were irrelevant, as indeed are the CIRA. Sadly neither of them have any concept of reality

So in your view the name Sinn Fein stands for British Crown officials, collaborators and informers??

[Joseph Pariah]

But what is the 'Law of the Republic'?

[Nijinsky]

But what is the 'Law of the Republic'?

Apparently whatever the so called Army Council of the CIRA decide it to be

[Joseph Pariah]

But of course.

[Liam Lynch]

The issue of Law is important because as Cael points out a reveloution has to act within a legal framework as an expression of the reveloution itself. But ultimately law derives from the right of a people to enact laws for itself and as such should be expressed in terms of the peoples right to do this. We cannot suffocate the right of the Irish people to enact laws on its own behalf by placing that right at the behest of an organised groupings leadership. The reasons for this are obvious, not least of which is the groups right to hold this view in the first place, but for reasons of corruption, betrayal and a flawed succession argument. We cannot leave the Irish people outside the loop of republican thinking. They cannot be tangents to their own right to freedom.

[Bacon-Egg]

The issue of Law is important because as Cael points out a reveloution has to act within a legal framework as an expression of the reveloution itself. But ultimately law derives from the right of a people to enact laws for itself and as such should be expressed in terms of the peoples right to do this. We cannot suffocate the right of the Irish people to enact laws on its own behalf by placing that right at the behest of an organised groupings leadership. The reasons for this are obvious, not least of which is the groups right to hold this view in the first place, but for reasons of corruption, betrayal and a flawed succession argument. We cannot leave the Irish people outside the loop of republican thinking. They cannot be tangents to their own right to freedom.

100%

great post

[Cael]

The issue of Law is important because as Cael points out a reveloution has to act within a legal framework as an expression of the reveloution itself. But ultimately law derives from the right of a people to enact laws for itself and as such should be expressed in terms of the peoples right to do this. We cannot suffocate the right of the Irish people to enact laws on its own behalf by placing that right at the behest of an organised groupings leadership. The reasons for this are obvious, not least of which is the groups right to hold this view in the first place, but for reasons of corruption, betrayal and a flawed succession argument. We cannot leave the Irish people outside the loop of republican thinking. They cannot be tangents to their own right to freedom.

Its not CIRA who are suffocating the right of the Irish people to make their own laws, its the British occupation. Surely you dont imagine that you can have genuine democracy in an occupied country?

Nor is it CIRA who are leaving them outside the "loop of republican thinking," as you put it. Most of them have weighed up the situation as it stands and made that decision for themselves.

The succession argument really doesnt matter anyway. There is only one IRA. How do you know the IRA? Not by its who's who, or who was who, or by what it is or isnt doing at any given moment, but by its resolute loyalty to The Law of the Republic, declared in 1916, and ratified by Dáil Éireann in 1918.


You say that the Irish people dont relate to, or even understand the concept of the Law of the Republic. True. Most of them dont. Indeed, many in the leadership of the Republican Movement, during the Tan War, hardly seem to have understood it either, including Michael Collins. The only ones who really showed that they understood the full implications of declaring a new revolutionary law, were people like Liam Lynch and Mary MacSwiney.

It seems to me that you want to wait, unlike the men and women of 1916, until the majority of Irish people already have shown their desire to live in a 32 county Irish Republic, before you have the temerity to declare it. I believe that is putting the donkey before the cart. Henry Ford didnt wait till everyone wanted a car before he started building them, he built them and that made everyone want one. A superficial example, perhaps, but human nature isnt all that complicated. As I said above, I believe that declaring Revolutionary Law is the very first act of a revolution - not the successful culmination of the revolution. Revolutionary law must be a more potent weapon in the revolutionaries arsenal than any guns or bombs. Guns may be captured and bombing making material may run out, but Revolutionary Law can never be broken by the enemy - only by former revolutionaries, who have turned their backs on that law. Collins, Mulcahey (and Adams/McGuiness more recently) counted up the bullets and came to the inevitable conclusion that the Brits had far more guns and bullets. They lost their nerve and sued for "peace" on the enemies terms. General Liam Ó Loinsigh, in complete contrast, recognised that it was not who had the most guns and bullets that mattered, but living by the Law of the Republic, and No Other Law.

[Seabird]

Liam,

We cannot suffocate the right of the Irish people to enact laws on its own behalf by placing that right at the behest of an organised groupings leadership.

We cannot leave the Irish people outside the loop of republican thinking. They cannot be tangents to their own right to freedom.

Yet the people voted for the GFA, they continue to support/vote for Sinn Fein and the peace process. However, some have the audacity to call them traitors, nationalists, non republican etc. The voice of the people have spoken but this does not appear to be enough.

RSF spends enough time educating their groups to lash out labels on Sinn Fein such as traitors when they themselves do absolutely nothing to enhance the movement toward a United Ireland.

IMHO if we had more unity and less groups maybe a United Ireland would be a reality now. Sometimes I feel as if we are playing a tug of war against each other while our spectators (brit. gov) sit on the sidelines laughing their arses off; all it reflects is chaos and confusion!

[Cael]

The Continuity IRA existed in 1916, but did not announce its formation until the 1990s?

The IRA did not announce its formation in the 1990s. That would be ridiculous, as it had already existed for eight decades by then. It was revealed to the Irish people in the 1990s that Comdt. General Tom Maguire had given the extra name of "Continuity" to the Army Council of the IRA in recognition of its unbroken service to the Irish Republic and its faithful obediance to the orders given it by Dáil Éireann in its 1938 Proclamation. The Army, of course, accepted this name from its beloved General.

[Cael]

Liam,





Yet the people voted for the GFA, they continue to support/vote for Sinn Fein and the peace process. However, some have the audacity to call them traitors, nationalists, non republican etc. The voice of the people have spoken but this does not appear to be enough.

RSF spends enough time educating their groups to lash out labels on Sinn Fein such as traitors when they themselves do absolutely nothing to enhance the movement toward a United Ireland.

IMHO if we had more unity and less groups maybe a United Ireland would be a reality now. Sometimes I feel as if we are playing a tug of war against each other while our spectators (brit. gov) sit on the sidelines laughing their arses off; all it reflects is chaos and confusion!

So you think joining English Crown law, taking wages to help administer and inflict Crown law on the Irish people, calling on the Irish people to become Crown collaborators and informers and murdering and kidnapping Irish Republicans is to "enhance the movement towards a United Ireland"????

[Vox Populi]

The IRA did not announce its formation in the 1990s. That would be ridiculous, as it had already existed for eight decades by then. It was revealed to the Irish people in the 1990s that Comdt. General Tom Maguire had given the extra name of "Continuity" to the Army Council of the IRA in recognition of its unbroken service to the Irish Republic and its faithful obediance to the orders given it by Dáil Éireann in its 1938 Proclamation. The Army, of course, accepted this name from its beloved General.
This is an entirely circular fairytale that denies reality. If the CIRA had existed since 1916, then why would it announce itself in the 1990s?

[Sonny]

But Liam Lynch went to war to attain the realisation of his principles, he didn't just stick to them. This is the whole point that seems to be lost here, its not about principles per se but what you do to realise them. As republicans we're not going to end partition by sticking to our principles but engaging in effective strategies to see them realised. This is where the unity project is based, on the issues of tasks, not principles.

First, a big round of applause for Cael and Liam Lynch's thoughtful exchange of posts here. Now for my two cents: it is about principles per se AND what you do to realise them. As Republicans we're going to end partition by sticking to our principles AND BY engaging in effective strategies to see them realised. This is where the unity project SHOULD BE based, on the issues of principles AND tasks. Reference the capitalist democrat FDR's strategic WWII alliance with communist dictator Josef Stalin to defeat German & Japanese fascism. Did this alliance affect FDR's democratic capitalist principles or Stalin's communist (ahem) principles? Of course it didn't. Therefore, seems to me if FDR can make common cause with the likes of Stalin, then RSF ought to be able to do same with many shades of Irish Republicanism and Nationalism. It's not even a case of politics making strange bedfellows (like FDR and Stalin).

[Cael]

This is an entirely circular fairytale that denies reality. If the CIRA had existed since 1916, then why would it announce itself in the 1990s?

It didnt.

[Kat]

So whom exactly do you think is responsible for enacting the law of the Irish republic Liam Lynch?


I will give ya a hint, the Irish people. Of course you dont choose to respect that, it is your prerogative.

As for principles and acting upon them it is true that there needs to be a combination of action and belief. IMO rsf is already by thier actions furthering thier principle on a daily basis...

Now i have been gone a little while, could somebody explain to me why rsf whould WANT to unite with people whose sneering rudeness is so strong it is palpable? I would be curious to know, and even more so I am curious to know why you would even care to unite with a group so worthy of your scorn in the first place? clearly there is nothing whatsoever for you all to respect in the strong clear principle laid out by rsf.
The contents of this thread proves that to be sure.

So what is that causes so much time to be spent discussing unity with a group you seem to feel so superior too that you feel the right to insult at every opportunity? RSF has become a well used and traditional football in irish republican politics today. It can ALWAYS be counted on to begin an argument that will eclipse other, more important news... so for instance if one of my leaders is found to be say touting and working for the brits for an astounding length of time and my org decides it not even necessary to punish him, i will just start talkin some smack about rsf... and LO it works every, what have we been talking about for 9 pages? hmmmmmmmmm....

I am certainly not judging the rsm for having a tout, we are all vulnerable to that i am sure, but these past couple of weeks could have lead to truly practical and pivotal debate on what if anything could have been done to heal the reputation of republicanism, what damage if any has been done, how this affected the rsm and more broadly the rm over the years, how much of todays position was created through this situation, and what sort of consequences came to be because of this man, There have been NO honest convos about this, instead guarded and empty commentary from all sides... but on this subject, another of the many LIVELY, repetitive and insulting debates about rsf .... sad really. Also sad is there seems to be no internal questioning from those orgs who though not directly affected by this tout, are certainly closely enough involved through the present broad front to have valid concerns for thier own interests... Instead of addressing them here we sit....

And we will again do this I am sure.... It wont be necessary next time this subject comes up either. if your broad front is to succeed it will rapidly eclipse rsf and unite Ireland, with or without rsf... unless you feel you have nothing on your own without rsf is not necessary for you to continually set rsf principle up for insult.

[Cael]

First, a big round of applause for Cael and Liam Lynch's thoughtful exchange of posts here. Now for my two cents: it is about principles per se AND what you do to realise them. As Republicans we're going to end partition by sticking to our principles AND BY engaging in effective strategies to see them realised. This is where the unity project SHOULD BE based, on the issues of principles AND tasks. Reference the capitalist democrat FDR's strategic WWII alliance with communist dictator Josef Stalin to defeat German & Japanese fascism. Did this alliance affect FDR's democratic capitalist principles or Stalin's communist (ahem) principles? Of course it didn't. Therefore, seems to me if FDR can make common cause with the likes of Stalin, then RSF ought to be able to do same with many shades of Irish Republicanism and Nationalism. It's not even a case of politics making strange bedfellows (like FDR and Stalin).


Go raibh maith agat, Sonny, for your kind words.

Actually I dont think FDR was any more of a democrat than Stalin was. One stood for the dictatorship of capital and the other for the dictatorship of himself. This relates to the difference between Sinn Féin and 32CSM. We may be agreed on what we are against i.e. English Crown occupation, but not on what we are for. FDR and Stalin certainly didnt share any common platform on what they were actually for - just that they were against Hitler, and not really because they considered him a bad guy, but because he was a threat to their power. I dont think any "broad front" between Sinn Féin and 32CSM will be sustainable until there is agreement on what we are actually for. Given the debate as it is unfolding on these pages, I dont expect any such agreement any time soon.

[Vox Populi]

Well, Kat, can I begin by saying at least the RSM has uncovered the tout. It isn't our movement that is sending young lads to jail at the behest of British intelligence. John Hogan had very little part to play in the Republican Unity initatives, there's no use dreaming up scenarios that don't exist.

This thread however, is not about the RSM. The main points of my orginal post haven't been challanged. The grounds on which RSF is opposed, not just to unity but even talking to people are based on an absolute lies and falsehoods.

[Vox Populi]

f your broad front is to succeed it will rapidly eclipse rsf and unite Ireland, with or without rsf... unless you feel you have nothing on your own without rsf is not necessary for you to continually set rsf principle up for insult.
Who is proposing a broad front, Kat?

[Cael]

Well, Kat, can I begin by saying at least the RSM has uncovered the tout. It isn't our movement that is sending young lads to jail at the behest of British intelligence. John Hogan had very little part to play in the Republican Unity initatives, there's no use dreaming up scenarios that don't exist.

This thread however, is not about the RSM. The main points of my orginal post haven't been challanged. The grounds on which RSF is opposed, not just to unity but even talking to people are based on an absolute lies and falsehoods.



Vox, a chara, I havent noticed that you made any points at all, just some bland slagging.

[Vox Populi]

Grand so.

[quirk]

I think two of the points Vox made where that:

1) There is no broad front and one has not been proposed. What we have is groups working together on issues on which they agree. There is no necessity to drop principles in the same way that it is not necessary to do so to participate in P.A.N.A. or to have taken part in the anti war march before the Iraq war (a march which PSF for one also participated in).

2)RSF's stated reason for not working with the 32CSM and IRSP is that these groups according to them recognise the partitionist parliaments as legitimate. This however is not the case. They also have a problem with both organisations claiming to represent republican opinion. Yet these groups do in fact represent a section of republican opinion something which I think is undeniable.

[quirk]

Towards A Peaceful Ireland states that:

Republican Sinn Féin believes that drafting a new 32-County Constitution would be more democratic, just and lasting than amending an existing flawed 26-county document. Furthermore, an open democratic forum would be more meaningful to the Irish people today than meetings behind closed doors between politicians who have failed the people so often.

How can it be possible to follow up on such a strategy of participation in an open democratic forum when there is a ban on co operating with other organisations who you might expect would participate in such a forum? Indeed I don't think Daithi O'Connell was envisioning such a democratic forum consisting of RSF alone so obviously he saw the need to work with groups which don't recognise the "Law of the Republic".

[Kat]

Yawn, all three points you have brought up quirk are not valid points at all, the first being that no broad front is being proposed... well that is silly on its face, because if indeed all you were proposing is that republican groups work together on those items in which they have agreement, well we already are doing that, rsf has indeed worked with other republicans whenever rsf principle is is not compromised, one case being the Peggy O'Hara campaign, but there are others. What is being proposed is indeed a broad front, and that fact is only denied when speaking in regards to rsf.

Secondly that rsf claims that other groups recognise partitionist parties as legitimate, which you deny... well this is true, you do, and you made this abundantly clear when you embraced the provisional ballot box strategy.

Your third invalid point, that rsf does not allow participation is completely bogus, a total laugh. RSF is a truly democratic org with a failsafe democratic structure already in place, a structure that ensuress those who choose to participate witll be heard, if they bother to participate... c'mon along quirk....

to not agree with rsf is your prerogative, but dont you have better uses for your time than to trash people who are working just as hard as yourself, if not harder? Is it totally inconceivable to you that rsf would see dialogue like this as insulting? And if they were in fact to see it as insulting, dont you think it natural that unity in the form of a broad front would not be high on thier list?

[Kat]

since i double Posted i will take this opportunity to remind people that the title of this thread is rsf, elitism and the braod front.... If what is being proposed it not indeed a broad front, it would be useful for all parties to get on the same page...

[Cael]

I think two of the points Vox made where that:

1) There is no broad front and one has not been proposed. What we have is groups working together on issues on which they agree. There is no necessity to drop principles in the same way that it is not necessary to do so to participate in P.A.N.A. or to have taken part in the anti war march before the Iraq war (a march which PSF for one also participated in).

2)RSF's stated reason for not working with the 32CSM and IRSP is that these groups according to them recognise the partitionist parliaments as legitimate. This however is not the case. They also have a problem with both organisations claiming to represent republican opinion. Yet these groups do in fact represent a section of republican opinion something which I think is undeniable.

If he had stated them in the clear and concise way that you have, quirk, a chara, without the sneering attitude, then maybe someone could attempt to address them.

Its clear that 32CSM is putting forward a philosophy which Sinn Féin finds faulty, i.e. that there is no legitimate law in Ireland - in other words that the Law of the Republic is not legitimate. How can you expect Sinn Féin to to give any credance to such a view, or to an organisation which proports to offer leadership to the Irish people in regard to the occupation of our country and the de facto re-establishment of the Republic, and, yet, holds such a view? The DUP says the Law of the Republic is not legitimate, 32CSM says it doesnt even exist.

P.A.N.A. and anti-war demos are on particular issues, external to the issue of the Republic, thats why Sinn Féin takes part in them.

The other issue is the practicality of trying to work out common approaches with people who are not really too sure where they stand themselves, as was the case with the "concerned republicans."

Then there is the fact that Sinn Féin is a very old organisation, has gone through a lot of history over the last 100 years or so and has a very, shall we say, developed sense of itself. I dont see it sitting down with 32CSM to work out any way forward, when it considers that it worked out the way forward already ninety odd years ago, and particularly, as I said above, since 32CSM dont see the necessity of Revolutionary law as an implement of the Revolution - indeed, the foundation of the Revolution. I noticed above, in a qoute from the 32CSMs constitution that it says that Crown law in Ireland is illegitimate in Ireland as it breaks international law - not because it breaks Irish law. This is a gulf in understanding that I believe the 32CSM must cross before Sinn Féin will take it altogether seriously.

[Cael]

Towards A Peaceful Ireland states that:



How can it be possible to follow up on such a strategy of participation in an open democratic forum when there is a ban on co operating with other organisations who you might expect would participate in such a forum? Indeed I don't think Daithi O'Connell was envisioning such a democratic forum consisting of RSF alone so obviously he saw the need to work with groups which don't recognise the "Law of the Republic".

The drafting of the new constitution would not take place, for obvious reasons, until after the occupation had been lifted and the 1938 Proclamation of Dáil Éireann no longer necessary. Did the Free French Government start writing a new constitution, while it was fighting the occupation of France? Of course not.

[Vox Populi]

P.A.N.A. and anti-war demos are on particular issues, external to the issue of the Republic, thats why Sinn Féin takes part in them.But are these not events at which those who "recognises 6 or 26 county states" may be present? Is PANA not a broad front of sorts including individuals who would disregard the issue of partition?

If senior Republican Sinn Féin members can attend a Provisional Sinn Féin organised meeting to heckle Gerry Adams, does that not indidate their political sectarianism only exists in regards to the IRSP and 32CSM?

[Sonny]

Go raibh maith agat, Sonny, for your kind words.

Failte aguth, Cael!

Actually I dont think FDR was any more of a democrat than Stalin was.

FDR took part in competitive presidential elections four times (an American record).

One stood for the dictatorship of capital and the other for the dictatorship of himself.

FDR stood for capitalist oligarchy with a Keynesian spin. Granted that’s not as good as things could be, but sure better than anything Stalin had on offer. Remember too that FDR was the first President to legalize labor unions in the U.S.

This relates to the difference between Sinn Féin and 32CSM. We may be agreed on what we are against i.e. English Crown occupation, but not on what we are for.

And that’s a start. We’re talking alliance here….not merger. And no alliance requires total agreement.

FDR and Stalin certainly didnt share any common platform on what they were actually for - just that they were against Hitler, and not really because they considered him a bad guy, but because he was a threat to their power.

And they didn’t have to share a common platform to get what they wanted.

I dont think any "broad front" between Sinn Féin and 32CSM will be sustainable until there is agreement on what we are actually for.

If all a broad front did was push England all the way out of Ireland once and for all, that would be a terrific start for all pushers.

Given the debate as it is unfolding on these pages, I dont expect any such agreement any time

I hear you. But keep talking man! Slan latinish.

[Vox Populi]

Furthermore, it has been claimed in Saoirse that Republican Sinn Féin is not linked with any military organisation. That being the case, why is the failure of the IRSP and 32CSM to recognise the claimed governmental authority of the CIRA an issue for RSF supporters and members?

[Cael]

Why is the main page only showing nine pages on this topic?

[Cael]

Furthermore, it has been claimed in Saoirse that Republican Sinn Féin is not linked with any military organisation. That being the case, why is the failure of the IRSP and 32CSM to recognise the claimed governmental authority of the CIRA an issue for RSF supporters and members?


Because Dáil Éireann gave its Governmental Authority to the Army Council of the IRA, not to Sinn Féin. But that does not mean that it is not the duty of every Irish citizen to recognise and support that Governmental Authority.

When 32CSM tells the Irish people that the Law of the Republic dosnt exist, they are telling them precisely the opposite of what Sinn Féin are saying. It is actually far more incidious for 32CSM to deny the Law of the Republic than for the Brits or free staters to do it.

[Joseph Pariah]

It seems to me that RSF's version of Republicanism isn't all that different to PSF's and the other 'Pan-nationalists' (although I don't doubt the sincerity of RSF). There's a lot more nationalism in there than socialism. This traditionalist approach is about uniting the 'Irish people' or 'nation' against the British state. In other words; tying workers to their bosses under the illusion that their shared nationality means that they have common goals. Republican Socialists should always reject this tendency. The Working Class Movement will achieve a British withdrawal and a democratic society. Nationalists only promise further oppression.

[Cael]

But are these not events at which those who "recognises 6 or 26 county states" may be present? Is PANA not a broad front of sorts including individuals who would disregard the issue of partition?

If senior Republican Sinn Féin members can attend a Provisional Sinn Féin organised meeting to heckle Gerry Adams, does that not indidate their political sectarianism only exists in regards to the IRSP and 32CSM?


I personally am involved with the SaveTara campaign and have no problem standing shoulder to shoulder with anyone who wants to prevent its destruction. I have yet, however, to meet anyone on those protests who thinks that Tara is just a hill or Lismullen is just some holes in a field (as free state minister Dempsey does.) Likewise, I would consider it illogical to be engaged in some activity to promote the Irish Republic with individuals or organisations who dont even believe it exists.

I dont know what incident you are refering to in regard to the Adams meeting, but Im sure if Sinn Féin members attending such a meeting it was not to share a common platform with him, but to attempt to point out the error in what he is saying. At best, a total waste of time in my view, as Adams and his supporters are well aware that they have left the path of Irish Republicanism a long time ago, and are now merely another British constitutional reform party.

[Cael]

It seems to me that RSF's version of Republicanism isn't all that different to PSF's and the other 'Pan-nationalists' (although I don't doubt the sincerity of RSF). There's a lot more nationalism in there than socialism. This traditionalist approach is about uniting the 'Irish people' or 'nation' against the British state. In other words; tying workers to their bosses under the illusion that their shared nationality means that they have common goals. Republican Socialists should always reject this tendency. The Working Class Movement will achieve a British withdrawal and a democratic society. Nationalists only promise further oppression.


Dia dhá reiteach, Joseph, a chara, where did you get this from? Do you think that confiscating land off the Gombeens to be used for housing for the people is going to make the Gombeens think they have a common goal with the Republican Movement? This is Sinn Féin policy.

[FTA69]

When 32CSM tells the Irish people that the Law of the Republic dosnt exist, they are telling them precisely the opposite of what Sinn Féin are saying. It is actually far more incidious for 32CSM to deny the Law of the Republic than for the Brits or free staters to do it.

There's no point in telling people to support the law of a republic which doesn't even exist. There is no Irish Republic in Ireland, there is a Free State and a British state. The Republic may well have been declared, and we may all well owe that ideal allegiance, but that does not equate with it actually being in existence. The Republic remains an aspiration toward which we must work, talk of defending a republic that doesn't exist is simply flying in the face of reality.

Then there is the fact that Sinn Féin is a very old organisation, has gone through a lot of history over the last 100 years or so and has a very, shall we say, developed sense of itself.

There are two Sinn Féins, and three IRAs. As far as I'm concerned Sinn Féin has generally been a failed political project, and with all the splits and schisms Óglaigh na h-Éireann has become more of a concept than the homogenous organisation that it was in 1916.

In other words Cael, you seem to be very hung up on the notion that an organisation must have "legal" backing to claim any sense of legitimacy. An argument which is sheer nonsense, Castro did not seek to wrap himself up in past governments and dead TDs, and neither ETA or FARC seek to do so today. The "law of the republic" lark is not a revolutionary staple, rather a preserve of RSF and the Continuity IRA.

[Cael]

There's no point in telling people to support the law of a republic which doesn't even exist. There is no Irish Republic in Ireland, there is a Free State and a British state. The Republic may well have been declared, and we may all well owe that ideal allegiance, but that does not equate with it actually being in existence. The Republic remains an aspiration toward which we must work, talk of defending a republic that doesn't exist is simply flying in the face of reality.



There are two Sinn Féins, and three IRAs. As far as I'm concerned Sinn Féin has generally been a failed political project, and with all the splits and schisms Óglaigh na h-Éireann has become more of a concept than the homogenous organisation that it was in 1916.

In other words Cael, you seem to be very hung up on the notion that an organisation must have "legal" backing to claim any sense of legitimacy. An argument which is sheer nonsense, Castro did not seek to wrap himself up in past governments and dead TDs, and neither ETA or FARC seek to do so today. The "law of the republic" lark is not a revolutionary staple, rather a preserve of RSF and the Continuity IRA.


Not sure about ETA, but FARC certainly has declared Revolutionary law and operates under it. Id be very surprised if Castro didnt do the same.

Talk about 2 Sinn Féins and 3 IRAs is just pure nonsense. How can you be the Army of a Republic that you dont even recognise? How can you call yourselves "Sinn Féin/Ourselves" if you take your wages from foreign occupiers of our country?

No doubt, if you consider there is only the free state and the English Crown, then by the only law available to the Irish people (by your estimation), all IRA Volunteers are criminals?

[quirk]

Yawn, all three points you have brought up quirk are not valid points at all, the first being that no broad front is being proposed... well that is silly on its face, because if indeed all you were proposing is that republican groups work together on those items in which they have agreement, well we already are doing that, rsf has indeed worked with other republicans whenever rsf principle is is not compromised, one case being the Peggy O'Hara campaign, but there are others. What is being proposed is indeed a broad front, and that fact is only denied when speaking in regards to rsf.

There is no broad front and none has been proposed. If you can produce evidence to the contrary then please do so but just insisting that something exists does not make it so. A broad front has a common programme which is adopted by all who are part of it, yet this is not the case with the Republican Unity project. There is no common programme but rather just co operation on issues on which we already agree. Have there been statements issued from a broad front or meetings held by it? Has people been elected to positions in it? The answer to these questions is no as a broad front does not exist. The onus is on those who make a claim to back it up with evidence yet none has been forthcoming. The claim that there is a broad front in existence yet its existence is only denied to RSF is another claim which has no basis. Can you produce evidence to back up this also? Is this an official strategy of this "broad front" in order to trick RSF and if not what would be the purpose of such lies in your opinion?

I was not aware that RSF worked with others on Peggy O'Hara's campaign. However as you have stated they did was this not then in breech of the Ard Fheis motion which banned "any cooperation with groups or organisation who claim to represent or give leadership to Irish Republican opinion in Ireland or abroad other than the true Irish Republican Movement."? After all the 32CSM and IRSP participated in her campaign. What are the other cases you mentioned of working with other republicans because from my reading of it (and I am open to correction) this is impossible with the current motion in place.

You claim that RSF are willing to work with other republicans on issues which require no compromise of principle. This is a fair point and it is only right that they should refuse to compromise their principles. But just to make it clear what principles would be compromised in participating in a joint protest against Hugh Orde's visit to Derry, participating in the joint Wolfe Tone commemoration or indeed having participated in the policing meetings which took place?

Also while we are discussing broad fronts I have one more question. Did Sinn Fein co operation with the IRSP as part of the H block committees require any sacrifice of principle and if they could work with the IRSP then what has changed to make it that they cannot now? After all the H block committees were much more of a broad front than anything which exists today.

Secondly that rsf claims that other groups recognise partitionist parties as legitimate, which you deny... well this is true, you do, and you made this abundantly clear when you embraced the provisional ballot box strategy.

So you can tell me what I do and don't believe in? I have never embraced any provisional strategy and indeed have never been part of that movement. Indeed we embrace the ballot box strategy much less the RSF being that they participate in elections and we do not. I assume you are basing your claim that we recognise partitionist assemblies on the fact that some of our members remained with PSF after 1986. Well this assumption falls when you take into account that some of our members also went with RSF at this time. The 32CSM was only founded in 1997 and they stated from our inception that "we hold that all administrations and assemblies purporting to act as lawful government for the Irish people, or otherwise functioning as partitionist entities, to be illegal ".

If you apply faulty logic to us why not also apply it to RSF. Does the fact that former members of PSF are now members of RSF mean that they also now recognise the partitionist parliaments? If not then what allows you to apply this to us but exempt RSF from it? If our members are not allowed to change their minds and the whole organisation should be judged by what some of our founders previously believed in, then in your opinion should we also be allowed to extent this to RSF and claim that they therefore believe everything Arthur Griffith believed in and are not allowed to change? Are RSF therefore duel monarchists? Of course I would never seek to apply such logic but that is what you seem to be doing as there is no other basis for claiming that the 32CSM recognise Leinster house as legitimate. But again if you have any evidence to back up your assertion then please do present it.

Also it is notable that yourself and Cael differ on this issue. You say we recognise free state law and it is this which prevents unity while Cael is saying unity is prevented because we recognise no law.

Your third invalid point, that rsf does not allow participation is completely bogus, a total laugh. RSF is a truly democratic org with a failsafe democratic structure already in place, a structure that ensuress those who choose to participate witll be heard, if they bother to participate... c'mon along quirk....

Kat I have never made such a claim in my life. I totally agree with you that RSF have a democratic structure. Could you quote where I made such a claim about them?

to not agree with rsf is your prerogative, but dont you have better uses for your time than to trash people who are working just as hard as yourself, if not harder?

Who have I trashed in particular? I disagree with a particular policy so there is no need to take it personal. As for claiming who works the hardest or does what well that has no relevance. This is a discussion forum and people are entitled to put an opinion across independently of what they have or haven't done. But besides that the argument has no relevance in the same way arguing that people cannot make a judgment on armed actions unless they are willing to do it themselves has no relevance as forums by there nature are anonymous and people will not divulge what they have or have not done.

Is it totally inconceivable to you that rsf would see dialogue like this as insulting?

No. Why would they be insulted at criticism of their policies and positions. Surely as a political organisation and as republicans they should be quite hard skinned about such matters. Do you think they should be above criticism? Also do you think that is is more insulting to have your policies criticised or to have lies told about you?

And if they were in fact to see it as insulting, dont you think it natural that unity in the form of a broad front would not be high on thier list?

Well there is no broad front. But at that participation in the unity project means uniting on issues which we agree but still struggling and debating the issues on which we disagree. There is certainly many differences between the 32CSM and IRSP. Indeed debate is positive in my opinion and it is also healthy for republicanism.

[Nijinsky]

Not sure about ETA, but FARC certainly has declared Revolutionary law and operates under it. Id be very surprised if Castro didnt do the same.

Talk about 2 Sinn Féins and 3 IRAs is just pure nonsense. How can you be the Army of a Republic that you dont even recognise? How can you call yourselves "Sinn Féin/Ourselves" if you take your wages from foreign occupiers of our country?

No doubt, if you consider there is only the free state and the English Crown, then by the only law available to the Irish people (by your estimation), all IRA Volunteers are criminals?


Under both those laws all IRA volunteers are criminal. That doesnt mean that Republicans agree with it or support such law.

As for FARC and revolutionary law, the reality in Colombia is far different than here. FARC actually control vast areas of Colombia larger than Ireland and have a massive support in those areas for them unlike the CIRA who control no territory whatsoever and have virtually no support at all. And as you yourself pointed out FARC actually operate and implement their law unlike the CIRA who merely imagine it in their heads.

[FTA69]

but FARC certainly has declared Revolutionary law and operates under it.

But their law is based on the fact they control and administer large amounts of Colombia, it is actually in progress. Besides, they aren't claiming legitimacy because one member of a dead parliament said they were the legitimate government. They are claiming their legitimacy from the fact they are spearheading the working-class movement in Colombia.

Talk about 2 Sinn Féins and 3 IRAs is just pure nonsense. How can you be the Army of a Republic that you dont even recognise? How can you call yourselves "Sinn Féin/Ourselves" if you take your wages from foreign occupiers of our country?

Sinn Féin is simply a title adopted by a political party, it isn't an ideology. And whether you like it or not there are indeed two SFs, and your one isn't even recognised as such by the vast majority of the Irish people. It is a name, not a creed. As for the IRA, there are now three of them as far as I can see, even discounting the Provos (the one recognised as such by the above) that still leaves two.

then by the only law available to the Irish people (by your estimation), all IRA Volunteers are criminals?

No, a criminal is not simply one who breaks the law.

[Liam Lynch]

[QUOTE]Its not CIRA who are suffocating the right of the Irish people to make their own laws, its the British occupation. Surely you dont imagine that you can have genuine democracy in an occupied country?


But you do suffocate that right when you tell the Irish people that the only route to the law they have a right to enact is via the AC of CIRA. And surely you don't believe that a genuine Irish democracy is predicated on the actions of CIRA?


Nor is it CIRA who are leaving them outside the "loop of republican thinking," as you put it. Most of them have weighed up the situation as it stands and made that decision for themselves.

But Cael you've taken the right of our people to enact their own laws away from the people and laid it squarely at the foot of the AC of CIRA. The highest authority in the nation are the people and its from the people that rights and their enactment and enforcement derive.

The succession argument really doesnt matter anyway. There is only one IRA. How do you know the IRA? Not by its who's who, or who was who, or by what it is or isnt doing at any given moment, but by its resolute loyalty to The Law of the Republic, declared in 1916, and ratified by Dáil Éireann in 1918.

Of course the succession argument is important because you've just alluded to a succession to claim legitimacy. This goes from 1916, 1918, 1938 and onto 1986. If there is a flaw in that succession, and there are, then the law you cherish so much should not be associated with it. And this is the crux of the matter, the law has to be above political controversy and that's why it is fatally flawed to divine a legal succession through the myriad of republican schisms since 1916. This approach reduces republican law to tedious and tortuous technical interpretations of political events to retrospectively justify your actions concerning those events. The right of republican law must be synonymous with the right of the Irish people to enact such law and that right also has to be above political controversy and schism.


You say that the Irish people dont relate to, or even understand the concept of the Law of the Republic. True. Most of them dont. Indeed, many in the leadership of the Republican Movement, during the Tan War, hardly seem to have understood it either, including Michael Collins. The only ones who really showed that they understood the full implications of declaring a new revolutionary law, were people like Liam Lynch and Mary MacSwiney.

The implication of declaring revolutionary law is by default you have to secure its implementation. Law is only law if it functions hence the importance of the Republican Courts at that time. None such exist today, the right exists but not its functioning. This is where the unity project is directed toward, the practical functioning of what we believe in.

It seems to me that you want to wait, unlike the men and women of 1916, until the majority of Irish people already have shown their desire to live in a 32 county Irish Republic, before you have the temerity to declare it. I believe that is putting the donkey before the cart.

But you spectacularly miss our point; the 32CSM is not waiting for such an opinion amongst the Irish people we've engaged their political leaders to fashion such an opinion and are now calling on republicans to cooperate in that task.. Its not a negative abstentionist appro