Ruairí Ó'Brádaigh Debates Eoghan Harris

by tom - Myself Alone Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:08

"The beginning of a break-up of the “United Kingdom” with the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly marks a step towards a Celtic League as advocated by Republicans since 1976. Such a body, on the lines of the Nordic Council or the Arab League would include the New Ireland with Scotland, Wales and Brittany and even perhaps the Isle of Mann and Cornwall."

I think there is an obvious potential that England, Scotland and Wales split.
If that happens it seems likely that Northern Ireland's unionist population would opt for political independence rather than a United Ireland irrespective of whether such an arrangement was viable or not.
After all the Republic of Ireland was often on the brink of economic collapse since 1922 until the "Celtic Tiger" emerged.
The idea of a Celtic League is just fantasy in my opinion.

by NollaigO Wed Jan 30, 2008 06:53

Frank

Ta an ceart agutsa, a bhuchaill

I received the following email last night. I'm not sure of the original source. It appears to be from "De Examiner"

Subject: harris does a bunk

29-01-2008

Heated debate on Republicanism

CORNELIA LUCEY

WHEN we try to force Northern Ireland into the South of Ireland it’s like trying to squash a square peg through a hole.
>
That was the argument last night to support the UCC philosophical society’s motion that ‘This house believes that Republicanism has no future”.
>
It was set to be the debate of all debates with two controversial political figures coming head to head to discuss the future of Irish Republicanism.
>
Columnist and lecturer Senator Eoghan Harris had beeen due to propose the motion, while ex-chief of staff of the IRA and president of Republican Sinn Féin Ruairí Ó’ Brádaigh was to stand in opposition.
But Mr Harris changed his mind and said it was ‘nationalism’ and not ‘republicanism’ he believed had no future, stepping back from the ring.
>
Instead Derek Doyle ex-auditor of the Philosophical society filled Harris’s shoes in the packed auditorium.
>
He argued that Republicanism was a political ideology of not what is happening in the present but what had happened in the depressed past.
>
“Freedom and happiness is a lot more important than what flag you have to pass to get to Belfast.”
>
Mr Ó’ Brádaigh disputed his words.
>
“The Belfast Agreement of 1998 is an artificial arrangement to secure British rule in an artificially carved out area of Ireland,” he said.
>
“To look forward to a small majority of nationalists in the six-county area within a gerrymandered Ireland is not the way ahead.”
>
When opened up to the audience insults meant the debate threatened to break down and security were put on stand by.
>
But auditor, Mr Ross Frenett, quickly regained control of the debate.
>
One northern-Irish girl’s view was felt by the society to be the most thought-provoking comment of the night, and was awarded an honorary scarf.
>
Jolene Quinn said: “I am a nationalist but I do not support the ideology that bombed my town. I’m a Catholic and a realist. Now my mother can work at a Protestant school and my sister can work freely as a PSNI officer.
>
After a tight call, the motion was defeated.

by Frank Tue Jan 29, 2008 20:10

Its been suggested Harris failed to show, any confirmation?

by jmstipe20 Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:30

UCC Philosophical Society, January 28, 2008

Address by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, Uachtaráin Sinn Féin Poblachtach (Republican Sinn Féin).

In opposing the motion “That This House Believes That Irish Republicanism Has No Future”, I base my argument on the premiss of the existence of the historic Irish nation.

I quote from the contribution last year of Sylvie Kleinman of the Department of Modern History, Trinity College, Dublin, to a volume entitled “Reinterpreting (Robert) Emmet” with particular reference to Emmet’s mission to France: “A common thread runs through the extensive manuscripts detailing official attitudes in France towards Ireland and the United Irishmen, namely that they were consistently described as representing une nation, un people, which to French perceptions could already claim its place among the nations of the earth.”

Documents issuing from the Irish College in Louvain, in what is now Belgium, 400 years ago used terms “náisiún” with regard to Ireland and “Éireannach” instead of “Gael” and “Gael-Ghael” in reference to an Irish person. We are not a revolted colony nor as Thomas Davis said “a sandbank thrown up by caprice of wind and wave”, but an ancient people.

It follows that there will always be an element of the Irish people to oppose English rule here. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 does not provide for final British government disengagement from Ireland and therefore cannot be regarded as the ultimate settlement.

This agreement took nine years to become effective and is basically an artificial arrangement to secure British rule in an artificially carved out area of Ireland and to safeguard the future of the vested interests of the 26-County State.

It has succeeded in creating an “institutionalised sectarianism” that is going to constrain the right of all the people of Ireland to self-determination. In the medium to long-term, this artificiality is bound to collapse. When the Stormont budget was introduced last week there was only the very small Alliance Party to oppose it. There is in effect no opposition.

The Agreement has succeeded only in subverting former Republicans to act as agents of British rule. Such an arrangement can never be viewed as a long term solution. Meanwhile the nationalist electorate continues to grow as is clear at local council level. However to look forward to a small majority of nationalists in the Six-County area within a gerrymandered Ireland is not the way ahead. With the passage of time the question arises: “Would they still be nationalists?”

What Republicans have proposed to meet this situation is an entirely New Ireland – Éire Nua – consisting of a four province federation and including a nine-county Ulster. Every power of government, except foreign affairs, national defence and overall financing would rest at provincial level or beneath.

In a nine-county Ulster, the Unionist-oriented population would have a working majority with the nationalists close behind them and within reach of power. With optimum devolution of decision-making strong regional boards and powerful district councils would be controlled by the local majority. In other words, natural horizontal power-sharing would replace the present enforced vertical arrangements.

We do not want to back the Unionists on to a cliff-edge politically where they will oppose us all the more. Neither do we seek to have them as a permanent and disgruntled political minority in one corner of Ireland. Besides, the proposals outlined would be more in keeping with the ideas of Wolfe Tone and Thomas Davis.

During the 1970s, soundings were taken with every shade of unionism to obtain reactions. The result in all cases was similar. “What would they do if the British did disengage from Ireland?” First choice was an independent Six Counties. We did not think that would be viable. In that case all said they would opt for our “four provinces idea” as the “most generous on offer”. As recently as last September, a delegation from the Ulster-Scots Society at a seminar in Donegal town reacted in the same manner: “provincial government” as what interested them.

Apart from providing a solution to the Ulster situation, these proposals would bring power nearer to the people and help to correct east-west economic imbalance nationally. Republicans submit that such structures will be necessary to ensure justice for all, including the 18% of the national population who have supported the unionist position.

In order to implement these proposals Republican Sinn Féin calls for the establishment of a Constituent Assembly elected by the adult sufferage of the whole people of Ireland. Instead of two different sets of questions being posed in the two parts of Ireland to determine a way forward for the entire country, the Irish people, acting as a unit, must be free to exercise their national right to self-determination.

The Assembly advocated would have the sole function of drafting a new Constitution and this would be put to the people in referendum for acceptance or rejection.

The internal relations of the Irish people with one another and their external relations with Europe and the world at large would be determined through free and open debate.

Prior to the setting up of the Constituent Assembly, the British Government must declare that it will withdraw its forces and establishment from Ireland within twelve months of the adoption of a new Constitution by the people of Ireland. Coupled with the above mentioned proposals there must be an amnesty for all political prisoners and people on the wanted list.

The beginning of a break-up of the “United Kingdom” with the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly marks a step towards a Celtic League as advocated by Republicans since 1976. Such a body, on the lines of the Nordic Council or the Arab League would include the New Ireland with Scotland, Wales and Brittany and even perhaps the Isle of Mann and Cornwall.

Is the future outlined here not worth striving for? Republicans would go further and advocate a Democratic Socialist Republic and a Green Republic as the policy documents of Republican Sinn Féin show. It was boasted in 1921 that Lloyd George had solved the Irish Question. Yet 77 years later, the Belfast Agreement was again supposed to have solved it. It remains to be solved. And even then with the struggle finally ended, the work of liberation goes on.
There is a future out there!

Ends.

by tom - Myself Alone Mon Jan 28, 2008 13:55

The 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland (Eire) exist.

The majority of people on this island north and south would prefer that at some time in the future the Republic of Ireland would include the 6 remaining counties that make up Northern Ireland.

However the fact remains that the majority of people who live in Northern Ireland wish to remain British citizens.

Irish Partition was clearly inevitable at the begining of the 20th century.

Had not the outbreak of the Great War occured in 1914 it is very likely that the Ulster Volunteers and the Irish Volunteers would have begun a bloody sectarian and tribal civil war eventually ending in a truce and an agreement to partition the devastated island.

Paisley and McGuinness are in Stormont together and it appears that a permanent peace exists.

Most republicans north and south realise that the unionist community in the north are not going to agree to a united ireland any time soon.

No sane republican seriously believes that if 51% of the population of Northern Ireland agree to a United Ireland that the problem would be solved either.

A significant minority of unionists and loyalists doubtless would never agree and similar civil unrest and violence to what we are all to familiar would be the obvious result.

The level of hatred between Catholic and Protestant communities is as intense as anytime during the Troubles.

The PSNI has already experienced loyalist riots and loyalist paramilitaries firing upon them.

Ian Paisely was equally likely as Martin McGuinness to have been Michael Stone's target during his abortive attack on Stormont.

The only future for Irish Republicanism is to live in peace with Unionism and to heal the divisions north and south.

I believe that some day Ireland will be united but not until some time after 2080 or 2120 at the earliest.