Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Ulick]

Hardy, Nally Stand is correct to include partition in any definition of republicanism as as the complete independence for the country as a sovereign republic is at the core of Irish Republicanism. To their credit SF have never recognised the legitimacy of the border, whereas most other political party not only recognise it but have done little to nothing to try and end it.

Therefore the argument follows that by recognising the legitimacy of the border they are denying the legitimacy an Irish Republic ergo they cannot be Irish Republicans. They could be wishy washy republicans in a DeValera sort of way who are happy to replace the British monarch with the Pope and the landlords with bankers and builders, but not Irish Republicans in the mould of Tone, Emmet, Russell, McCrackan, Duffy, Davis, Meagher, Pearse, Connolly, Breen, O'Malley, O'Donnell, Connolly-O'Brien, McBride, Ryan etc...

[Hardy]

I was talking about the definition of republicanism. I don't know of any consistent definition of "Irish Republicanism". I think you'll get as many definitions as there are political parties, commentators and self-styled "Republican" splinter groups, so it would be a futile exercise to debate which party is more "Irish Republican" than another, a fall at the first fence being inevitable since agreement on the definition would be unreachable.

But I can't understand how you can claim that SF "have never recognised the legitimacy of the border" when they're administering a regime that's based on the legitimacy of the border. I'm sure they even continue to claim it themselves and even carry on happily believing it by some sort of provo version of the recently discovered phenomenon of mental reservation. But sensible people like you and me are not going to be that silly, are we?

[Ulick]

I was talking about the definition of republicanism. I don't know of any consistent definition of "Irish Republicanism". I think you'll get as many definitions as there are political parties, commentators and self-styled "Republican" splinter groups, so it would be a futile exercise to debate which party is more "Irish Republican" than another, a fall at the first fence being inevitable since agreement on the definition would be unreachable.

Fair enough, but you were being a tad disingenuous by unhitching 'republicanism' from the tradition of 'Irish Republicanism'. 

But I can't understand how you can claim that SF "have never recognised the legitimacy of the border" when they're administering a regime that's based on the legitimacy of the border. I'm sure they even continue to claim it themselves and even carry on happily believing it by some sort of provo version of the recently discovered phenomenon of mental reservation. But sensible people like you and me are not going to be that silly, are we?

All of the people I mentioned above would have engaged in the same type of administration at some stage and we wouldn't deny that they were all genuine republicans. The point remains that SF have been active in trying to end partition, whether not not they have been successful is a moot point, but I ask were all are the green and white papers on partition from the successive government parties in the south? Where are the proposals to end partition and secure the Republic of the First Dáil?   

[Hardy]

Not being disingenuous. Just trying to do my bit for clarity in the debate and to remove the confusion between true republicanism and the myriad corruptions of it espoused by various shades of the political spectrum here.

I don't think SF have achieved any more than any other party in the effort to end partition. In fact, it can be argued that their antics over the last 80-odd years have done more to copper fasten the border than anything else.

The single most significant step towards the ending of partition was the Good Friday Agreement. And I think it can safely be said that the most important partition-related elements that facilitated that agreement were the Irish government's removal of Articles 2 and 3 from the constitution, the Brits' abandonment of the constitutional guarantee to unionists and the agreement of both sides to accept the principle of consent.

SF, as I remember it, opposed two of those three proposals.

[Ulick]

Not being disingenuous. Just trying to do my bit for clarity in the debate and to remove the confusion between true republicanism and the myriad corruptions of it espoused by various shades of the political spectrum here.

I don't think SF have achieved any more than any other party in the effort to end partition. In fact, it can be argued that their antics over the last 80-odd years have done more to copper fasten the border than anything else.

The single most significant step towards the ending of partition was the Good Friday Agreement. And I think it can safely be said that the most important partition-related elements that facilitated that agreement were the Irish government's removal of Articles 2 and 3 from the constitution, the Brits' abandonment of the constitutional guarantee to unionists and the agreement of both sides to accept the principle of consent.

SF, as I remember it, opposed two of those three proposals.

I think we are straying a bit here Hardy and I don't have time to be debating the merits of SF and the GFA. As I understood the initial dispute you were challenging Nally Stand on why he/she feels SF are republican in ways that the other parties are not. I have clarified my interpretation of that in that to me republicanism comes in the context of Irish Republicanism in the tradition of those I have mentioned previously and Irish independence is a central plank in that tradition.

Now if political parties haven't been doing their damnedest to secure that national independence (which incorporates the end of partition) then I don't believe they are republican (big or small r). If you want to ask Nally Stand to refine his definition of republicanism go ahead and I may re-enter the debate when I have more time, but partition should still be a part of that debate whether you believe it to be "woeful" or not. 

[Hardy]

I'm finished too. Nothing to add.

Just as a matter of interest, since it has been speculated on here, are you sparring partner formerly known as Donagh? It doesn't matter, of course - just idle curiosity on my part.

[Evil Genius]

I don't think SF have achieved any more than any other party in the effort to end partition. In fact, it can be argued that their antics over the last 80-odd years have done more to copper fasten the border than anything else.

Absolutely. For just as Paisley, with his bigoted bellowing was often (fairly, imo) characterised as the "IRA's Chief Recruitment Officer", then SF/IRA, by their 2,000 murders etc, managed only to reinforce the determination of 1 million Unionists in NI to remain British, to implacable levels.

The single most significant step towards the ending of partition was the Good Friday Agreement.

I haven't the time (or the inclination) to expand further, but imo, the GFA is proving to be the single most important step towards preserving  Partition since WWII (at least).

For as I've said before, the sad fact is that many Unionists are too stupid/fearful to recognise this, whereas many Republicans (SF/IRA effectively) are too dishonest/embarrassed to admit it.

Indeed, as it pleased me to point out at the time of his death, one of the chief Republican proponents of the GFA, Brian Keenan, was born in the UK and died in it. (Joe Cahill the same) And while I have no way of knowing how long I will live, I am more confident than ever that others will be able to make that point about me.

Me and Gerry Adams...

[Rossfan]

Sinn Feinare the only republican party in leinster house

FF( The Builders/Bankers Party) want a re United Independant Ireland,(without a monarchy) in accordance with the GFA when a majority of 6 Co voters want to end the current link with GB.
FG (once the big farmers and shopkeepers party) want  a re United Independant Ireland,(without a monarchy) in accordance with the GFA when a majority of 6 Co voters want to end the current link with GB.
Labour ( former Union officials party) want a re United Independant Ireland,(without a monarchy) in accordance with the GFA when a majority of 6 Co voters want to end the current link with GB.
Sinn Féin want .......... the same 
So how are they the only republican party in the Dáil ?
I didnt  mention the Greens as they wont exist after 2012 

[ardmhachaabu]

With respect, you are not making any sense on this.  SDLP have as many republicans in it as SF do, same with FF in the south. 

Eh? How could they if they take an oath to a monarch?  Surely that is the complete antithesis of republicanism i.e. the British monarch is not a citizen and therefore not equal before the law.

Don't be so pedantic, you know exactly what I mean 

[ardmhachaabu]

If I an entitled to, why then say "don't think you will be allowed" to get away with spouting pro SF "nonsense". Any why come up with points to counter an argument i didn't make. Not once did i suggest that all republicans support SF. However your claim that the SDLP and FF have as many republicans as SF is laughable. It wasn't I who nicknamed the SDLP the stoop down low party. A label it earnt for itself for its willingness to bend the knee to unionism. As for FF, my earlier post covered its partitionism

SF are as partitionist as those other parties, you just don't see it.

[magickingdom]

A lot of you boys are in the North and may not be fully aware of what is happening SF in the south. The honeymoon is over, people want some ideas from SF and are tired of constant blathering about the peace process. Adams has become a liability as he is completely out of touch with what  is going on in the South. O Caolain should have been let me SF's main spokesman for the last general election but instead we got Gerry Adams getting obliterated on national tv debates. SF should be making hay in these times as a left wing party but are not positioned to do so and I fear for them in the south big time.

the whole of the sf leadership should go if for no other reason than to make a clean break with the past. when sf lose a european election seat to joe higgins who stands for everything sf stands for except is not sf its time to wake up and get a mirror and ask the hard questions. gerry adams will never recover in the south from the pre election 'debate' (debacle) where his incompetence on the southern economy was breathtaking. btw ff are a republician party

[Nally Stand]

I don't think i have to take past i a red herring argument on defining Irish republicanism. It is generally accepted by the population (just not hardy) that partition is the central part. And if we want to talk about the other "republican" parties, the SDLP takes an oath to the british queen while the southern big two have been tripping over themselves for 3 years to invite this monarch to parade around dublin. One FF cllr in a UCD debate argued for rejoining the british commonwealth. Republican???

[Hardy]

The commonwealth is full of republics. The British queen regularly visits republics without causing them to revoke their constitutions and become monarchies. Heads of state of our European partners regularly visit Dublin. Why do you fear a visit from the British queen? It's not very republican to be cringing before monarchs.

[Nally Stand]

I didn't use the word fear once. I don't think it is appropriate though. She still claims part of Ireland in her kingdom and still has not apologised for awarding medals of bravery to her troops who murdered 14 civil rights protesters in Derry, or apologised for her forces involvement in collusion. That is aside from the argument. I didn't say it would effect the status of the 26 counties as a republic once. While she claims to be queen of any part of Ireland it isn't very republican to invite her here.

[Hardy]

The people of Ireland have accepted her claim by overwhelming democratic majority, which is how it works in republics, so how would it be a token of republicanism to deny it?