6cIrish unionists reject powersharing deadline

[PRC-UTE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6505403,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6505403,00.html)

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/24/ap3548566.html

Northern Ireland's main Protestant party on Saturday rejected a British deadline to share power with Catholics, officials said, launching a showdown that could end in the collapse of the territory's legislature.

More than 100 officials from Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party voted overwhelmingly to reject Britain's long-held demand for a 12-member administration to be formed and receive powers by Monday, according to officials in both the party and the British government, speaking anonymously because negotiations between the two sides were continuing.

Britain insists the Northern Ireland Assembly will be shut down immediately in favor of intensified Irish government involvement in the British territory if the Monday deadline is missed.

The officials said Paisley and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were involved in last-minute telephone negotiations. They said the Protestant party called on Britain to pass an emergency bill to delay the deadline until May. In exchange, Paisley would agree to meet for the first time with Gerry Adams, leader of the major Catholic-backed party, Sinn Fein.

Adams said Britain must stick to the deadline and give no more time to Paisley.

"There will be deep disappointment and dismay at the failure of leadership by the DUP and their efforts to frustrate the will of the people," Adams said.

The 108-member assembly, which was re-elected only two weeks ago, was designed to form a 12-member, four-party administration that would take control of Northern Ireland government departments from Britain. Such cross-community cooperation was supposed to be the centerpiece of the province's 1998 peace accord but has failed since 2002 amid Protestant hostility to Sinn Fein.

Paisley declined to discuss specifics of the party's motion — but emphasized he would not be coerced by Britain's deadline, saying Protestants "will be persuaded but they are not going to be driven."

In Dublin, Adams canceled a planned news conference and traveled north to meet Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain and other British officials. Hain faced his own midnight deadline — to issue an order that would permit power to be transferred Monday from himself to local hands.

The Democratic Unionists say they will work with Sinn Fein only if the party's leaders demonstrate convincing support for law and order.

Sinn Fein, which supported the Irish Republican Army's 1970-1997 campaign to overthrow Northern Ireland by force, in January voted to open normal relations with Northern Ireland's mostly Protestant police.

But the political messages and events in Sinn Fein power bases since have been mixed.

Adams has repeatedly called on supporters to help police solve specific crimes and certain categories of crime, such as drug dealing and rape, but has also defended a deputy's view that police should not be told about the activities of IRA dissidents plotting to wreck the 1997 cease-fire.

And police units have continued to face violence in hard-line Catholic parts of Northern Ireland, including overnight.

Police said men and youths threw more than a dozen gasoline bombs early Saturday at a police station in Crossmaglen, a border town renowned as an IRA bastion, causing scorch damage to perimeter walls but no injuries. On Friday night, another Catholic crowd pelted detectives with stones and bottles as they tried to investigate the fatal beating of a pub-goer in the religiously divided town of Lurgan.

[PRC-UTE]

The analysis of Republican Socialists and other Republicans has been
proven 100% correct. No matter how much the GFA is watered down to appease
the reactionaries, they will not share power with Catholics.

The line some socialists in Ireland push, that you must build working class unity by not offending the protestants (ie the national question, rights for women, homosexuals, etc) has once again been proven flat out wrong.

The six county state is an irreformable hellhole of sectarianism and must be smashed.

[The Grey Blur]

Sections of the Protestant working-class are just as fed-up of the bigotry and pro-capitalist policies of the DUP as we are. It's just that this section has been turned off politics by the lack of a visible alternative, which is what Socialists are trying to combat.

Look at this way - NI is 52% Protestant, 48% Catholic - if we can win over that tiny majority of the Protestant workers to Socialism, as well as the mass Catholic working-class, we could have a Socialist United Ireland. Which is the only sort of United Ireland, as a Socialist, I'm interested in.

[Coggeh]

well not all catholics are socialists pr .They'll be just as hard as the prodestant in some retrospects .

[The Grey Blur]

Yeah of course. I'm just acknowledging that the Catholic working-class, unlike the Protestant, has not been under the intense anti-progressive, soporificating, influence of Unionism for hundreds of years. They have been brainwashed into distrust and hatred of Catholics or indeed anyone who wishes to change society, whereas the Catholic working-class (though containing a comparable amount of reactionaries) is not under the heel of such institutional sectarianism, and thus would be easier to win to the banner of Socialism. That's my opinion anyway.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 26, 2007 03:16 pm
Yeah of course. I'm just acknowledging that the Catholic working-class, unlike the Protestant, has not been under the intense anti-progressive, soporificating, influence of Unionism for hundreds of years. They have been brainwashed into distrust and hatred of Catholics or indeed anyone who wishes to change society, whereas the Catholic working-class (though containing a comparable amount of reactionaries) is not under the heel of such institutional sectarianism, and thus would be easier to win to the banner of Socialism. That's my opinion anyway.
Right. We're not saying that the Catholic community is entirely progressive- we're sayign that the main obstacle is the Unionist/Loyalist mindset. After basically surrendering and ditching all aspects of republicanism from their party, SF still can't get the DUP to form a governement with them.

The issue is sectarianism, and the sad fact that a very large number of protestants view any move towards equality with Catholic / nationalist population as a threat.

[Severian]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+March 24, 2007 03:18 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ March 24, 2007 03:18 pm) o matter how much the GFA is watered down to appease
the reactionaries, they will not share power with Catholics. [/b]
Well, actually..... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1572754.ece)

Iif your analysis predicted it would "never" happen.....

This is a change in the form of British rule, of course. No more...and no less. Moments when a ruling class has to reorganize its rule are moments when its vulnerable.....unfortunately, Sinn Fein is less and less capable of taking advantage of the moment to organize any kind of mass action to deal blows to British rule. And yet it will not be easily or quickly bypassed, since for many years Sinn Fein has been, like it or not, the main organization leading the fight for an independent and united Ireland.


Permanent Revolution
Sections of the Protestant working-class are just as fed-up of the bigotry and pro-capitalist policies of the DUP as we are. It's just that this section has been turned off politics by the lack of a visible alternative, which is what Socialists are trying to combat.

Look at this way - NI is 52% Protestant, 48% Catholic - if we can win over that tiny majority of the Protestant workers to Socialism, as well as the mass Catholic working-class, we could have a Socialist United Ireland. Which is the only sort of United Ireland, as a Socialist, I'm interested in.

But then:

I'm just acknowledging that the Catholic working-class, unlike the Protestant, has not been under the intense anti-progressive, soporificating, influence of Unionism for hundreds of years. They have been brainwashed into distrust and hatred of Catholics or indeed anyone who wishes to change society,

So in that case, why would anyone think that Protestant workers can be won to socialism by avoiding the national question? Over the decades, many people have tried. Among these many, Gerry Adams, who writes in his autobiography about an early political experience trying to organize workers across sect lines around economic issues - mighta even been water rates - and running straight into the brick wall of sectarian division and bigotry. "Fenians, pope-heads, taigs...."

There's not going to be any class unity until the national question - British rule and the castelike oppression of Catholics - is dealt with. Any more than class unity in the southeastern U.S. was a possibility until slavery and legal segregation were smashed.

Which is a good reason why it's wrong to say "a Socialist United Ireland. Which is the only sort of United Ireland, as a Socialist, I'm interested in." Smashing British rule, smashing systematic discrimination against Catholics in the north, are both important steps by themselves, big steps forward for class unity.

The only thing is, neither of those things is going to happen without class struggle, mass action....

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:48 am

Iif your analysis predicted it would "never" happen.....


It was never a secret that Paisley was willing to share power with SF, the issue was that he was afraid of his own party's grassroots if he did. That's why it's been drawn out this way- and it certainly remains to be seen if he'll be overthrown by his own party or replaced for this.

I still repeat that they will not share power with catholics- I don't know if you've followed this story, but the PSNI, the "new" RUC is still completely dominated by the same loyalists as it was before. Nothing substantially has changed. Remember that the power sharing assembly was supposed to be up and running years ago...

[Andy Bowden]

Whether they will share power in reality and not on paper is the question. Martin McGuiness was Education Minister in the north, and he could do sweet FA to help catholic school kids being intimidated at Holycross for example.

In relation to Sevs reply to PR, I totally agree - a United Ireland, even one that was capitalist would still be a step forward in dealing with the institutionalised sectarianism that acts as a block on workers unity in the north.

[The Grey Blur]

Okay so you're pro-capitalist. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Before you reply Andy, I can see where PR's coming from. Sev said nothing about a "capitalist" United Ireland and I agree with him that ending discrimination and sectarianism are important steps toward class unity. I'd love to say that the Protestant and Catholic working class will band together tomorrow to create a Socialist United Ireland ... but realistically it's not going to happen. This is why campaigns such as that against water charges are important - they bring the working class of both sides together.

PRCE-UTE said:


...it certainly remains to be seen if he'll be overthrown by his own party or replaced for this.

I reckon that DUP dissidents were told to either shut-up or get out of the party. The resignation of the MEP, Jim Allister (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6499623.stm) (thank fuck) is, I think, evidence of this.

[Andy Bowden]

Im pro a United Ireland as a democratic advance for the class, like Im pro-universal suffrage and pro-Republican.

You'd support an independent Vietnam right? Does that make you a pro-Stalinist?


I'd love to say that the Protestant and Catholic working class will band together tomorrow to create a Socialist United Ireland ... but realistically it's not going to happen. This is why campaigns such as that against water charges are important - they bring the working class of both sides together.

Even after Ireland is united there will still be sectarianism, given the level of ingraining into the province. But what won't be present is a sectarian government, police force, etc

And campaigns like the one against water charges are important not only for fighting poverty but on the class unity basis you refer to. Im not a stalinist and I dont think Socialists in Ireland should drop everything to campaign for reunification and leave Socialism till later - it has to be built in the here and now.

[Louis Pio]

I think the point is that even a "united Ireland" on a capitalist basis would not be independent in any way nor would it get rid of the secterianism. Secterianism would still flourish and be used by capitalists for their political goals. So the most utopian people are the ones that think a united capitalist Ireland would solve anything. It would just be false independence nothing more.

Connolly put it quite precise in this famous quote and I think it still fits today.

“If you remove the English Army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle., unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts will be in vain. England will still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs. England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed”.
- James Connolly, from Socialism and Nationalism in Shan Van Vocht, January 1897

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 24, 2007 09:18 pm
The six county state is an irreformable hellhole of sectarianism and must be smashed.
You cannot smash the border while the majority of people here do not want it to be smashed. How exactly do you intend to bring the border down? By winning unionists over to Irish republicanism?

Winning the protestant people over to socialism seems a hell of alot more realistic than winning them over to the IRSP's brand of nationalistic pseudo-socialism.

[Louis Pio]

I'll admit I don't know much about IRSP's precent politics, I've read about how INLA fucked up and so on.

But Makaveli have you ever read Seamus Costello or Ta Powers? I fail to see how they qualify as "nationalistic pseudo-socialism".

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:22 pm
I'll admit I don't know much about IRSP's precent politics, I've read about how INLA fucked up and so on.

But Makaveli have you ever read Seamus Costello or Ta Powers? I fail to see how they qualify as "nationalistic pseudo-socialism".
Being a socialist living in Belfast, I have read some of Costello's writings. Although I do respect Costello, I think the IRSP's analysis of the situation here is incorrect. How exactly do they intend to bring about a United Ireland? Obviously armed force is out the window, and I doubt they are going to woo the protestant people here with their republican rhetoric.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:04 pm
Although I do respect Costello, I think the IRSP's analysis of the situation here is incorrect. How exactly do they intend to bring about a United Ireland? Obviously armed force is out the window, and I doubt they are going to woo the protestant people here with their republican rhetoric.
So maybe if we lie to the prods about our ultimate goal (a united socialist Ireland not ruled from London) we can trick them into a revolution!! :lol:

Afterall, this approach has been such a spectacular success (not) for over a hundred years, no reason we should re-examine our methods! :wacko:

The basic division in the working class is between nationalists and loyalists. It is now worse than ever as a result of the "peace" process as this article explains (http://www.rsym.org/reabhloid/?p=4). This is a product of British rule which artificially maintains this division through privelages for the loyalists over their papist neighbours. Therefore, we have to remove the British hand upholing the Unionist veto to achieve progress and workers unity.

Physical force republicanism has been discredited as much as economist socialism. The way forward is republican socilaist mass struggle. We cant lie to the people about our ultimate goal and expect them to trust us- Lenin dealt with this in Left Wing Communism; the most basic principle for communists is to tell workers the truth even when they don't want to hear it. And the truth is that British rule in Ireland is a failure that only produces carvnivals of reaction.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 30, 2007 08:06 pm
the truth is that British rule in Ireland is a failure that only produces carvnivals of reaction.
Not so sure about that - so, 'never' being a powerful word, are you proven wrong if Paisley becomes first Minister on 8th May with McGuinness as second in command as currently planned ?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by gilhyle+March 30, 2007 09:00 pm--> (gilhyle @ March 30, 2007 09:00 pm)
PRC-[email protected] 30, 2007 08:06 pm
the truth is that British rule in Ireland is a failure that only produces carvnivals of reaction.
Not so sure about that - so, 'never' being a powerful word, are you proven wrong if Paisley becomes first Minister on 8th May with McGuinness as second in command as currently planned ? [/b]
Not sure how that relates to british rule creating reaction in Ireland. Sectarianism is up which all sides agree on. Paisley forming a state with Adams wouldn't change that as the GFA has set up community based resource allocation politics.

My initial post caused some confusion which is my fault and I will clear it up. It should have been written as,'The analysis of Republican Socialists and other Republicans has been proven 100% correct.'

I should have begun the next line with 'And in my personal opinion, no matter how much the GFA is watered down to appease the reactionaries, they will not share power with Catholics.'

I should have more carefully qualified what was my opinion and what is the official position of my Party.

I said that in responce to the DUP voting against power-sharing; it now appears they're being forced to anyway. We'll see how that works out. However it's not the central issue at all, and one the IRSP doesn't care about either way as it's not a move towards democratising the six county state despite how it's hyped.

Keep in mind that the Loyalists have not budged an inch on the most contentious issue; policing. We were supposed to be moved by another basically meaningless 'historic' annoucement but I haven't forgotten what the real issues are.

[PRC-UTE]

Winning the protestant people over to socialism seems a hell of alot more
realistic than winning them over to the IRSP's brand of nationalistic
pseudo-socialism.


Well if the IRSP are 'nationalistic' than so were Marx (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/12/16.htm), Engels, Lenin (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/BLAI14.html), and
James Connolly.

This line is nothing new of course- it was first formulated by the
Moscow-aligned Official Irish communists. Though you mostly hear it these
days from the ultra lefty and trendy lefty crowd, it owes more to the
Stalinist Stagist theory than to genuine Marxism.

The position of Marx (whose own family financially subscribed to
Connolly's Irish Socialist Republican Party) and to the
still-revolutionary Bolsheviks took the position of supporting National
Liberation in Ireland, Marx even regarding it as 'inevitable'.

Of course just because our greatest theorists and leaders took this
position doesn't mean it's still correct. But practice has shown that in
those places where Republican Socialist methods were used (or more broadly
speaking, in places where the class struggle was combined with the
struggle against occupation of Ireland by Britain)the struggle also went the furthest and gained the deepest support. (http://www.limericksoviet.com)

It's strange to me that people are still repeating the Moscow Stagist line
as practice has proven it to be a spectacular failure. It has been proven
just as worthless as provisional-style physical force republicanism. That
is, the efforts to unite the working class on purely bread and butter
issues has never made a dent in the north of Ireland- it always crashes
against the barrier of sectarianism. Connolly was correct to dismiss this as 'gas and waterworks socialism.' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1911/connwalk/index.htm)

Something I've long wondered is, if the Kautskyist SP/CWI holds the same
line as the descendents of the OIRA/OSF, the Workers Party, (gas and
waterworks socialism, hostility to anti-imperialism), why don't they just
join them? Afterall, the WP gets more votes!

Republican Socialism is still the only revolutionary trend in Ireland that
offers the entire working class the way forward; not just the slightly
more privelaged social-chuavinist layer.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Teis+March 28, 2007 11:27 am--> (Teis @ March 28, 2007 11:27 am) I think the point is that even a "united Ireland" on a capitalist basis would not be independent in any way nor would it get rid of the secterianism. Secterianism would still flourish and be used by capitalists for their political goals. [/b]
Really? Is there as much sectarian division in the Republic as in British-occupied Ireland? Obviously not.

It's incredibly utopian and economist to pretend that nothing can be accomplished under capitalism. That approach turns socialism into pie in the sky, something to be waited for like the Second Coming of Jesus, not a political approach relevant to the real-world conflicts of today....

Every step forward has to be fought for and defended. And again, an independent and united Ireland, even under capitalism, would be a step forward. Of course, communists will try to combine the national and socialist revolutions....but that's a goal, a strategy, not an ultimatum. The historical process has a way of ignoring ultimatums.

A little while ago PRC-UTE repasted a blog post on the elections which gave a summary of the practical experience of bread-and-butter economism in northern Ireland: (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64125)

Originally posted by Splintered [email protected]
Joking aside, the main problem with the SP’s perspective is their weird belief that you can build a base for socialism in places like the
Beersbridge Road, if only you disavow anti-imperialism and strip out from
your programme anything that might scare the Prods. The SP have been doing
this for decades – so much so that their last manifesto only had one item
on it. And they still can’t get votes in these areas! It would be
interesting to see which boxes the tiny SP vote actually did come from – I
suspect much of it actually comes from the Markets and Short Strand, and
is an offshoot of the once substantial WP vote in those areas. The thing
is that, for well over 30 years, the only places in the North where
socialism could find any audience have been working-class Catholic areas,
where there has been some radical and anti-imperialist consciousness. That
means West Belfast and Derry, to a lesser extent North Belfast and Newry,
and some small pockets elsewhere. In other words, the left republican
constituency mentioned above. The SP’s schematic dogmatism doesn’t allow
them to consider this; the SWP are dimly aware of it on some pragmatic
level, although it contradicts their formal politics.

Can anyone dispute there's a certain basic reality to that?


PRC-UTE
The basic division in the working class is between nationalists and loyalists. It is now worse than ever as a result of the "peace" process as this article explains.

That article says:

Catholic neighbours on the opposite side of the barriers now have greater opportunities in terms of employment which they never once had. This attitude has further exacerbated feelings of isolation and abandonment for Protestants.

In other words, what's going on is a backlash against advances made by Catholics in overcoming their oppressed status in northern Ireland...a backlash which is not, however, completely stopping those advances.

A backlash in defense of privilege is only to be expected in these situations, it's been seen everywhere discriminatory privileges are lost. But in the long run, more equality does mean fewer divisions and prejudices....

It's not competing in the labor market by itself that makes workers resent each other, but when one group of workers begin to see and exploit an opportunity to gain privileges from the exclusion of competitors from some segment of the labor market.

The other big reducer of prejudices is daily contact as equals (e.g. not as worker and supervisor)....so a big question is how much is that happening. The article suggests residential separation is deep. IIRC northern Irish schools also are separated on the basis of religion (another thing to oppose.) That leaves work....if more Catholics are working, and in better jobs, are more Catholics and Protestants working alongside each other?

[gilhyle]

It seems to me that it is certainly true that there is still (indeed it has increased) deep sectarianism. That is not surprising. Imperialism's solutions, having relied on (and often inflated) sectarian divides, is then to institutionalise the sectarian divides as a way of creating 'peace' when they no longer need to whip up sectarianism for their own purposes.

This is the case in Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and Rwanda.....and it is the pattern in Ireland.

The peace process is a process of the institutionalisation of sectarianism. The establishment of a political system which can ONLY operate on the basis of people giving themselves sectarian labels is obscene. It is multi-culturalism at its worst.

As a 'statelet' northern Ireland breaches very basic principles of bourgeois democracy.

Its not surprising that it goes hand in hand with the transformation of sectarianism from spurious standard of priviledge to badge of special pleading for everyone. There is a phrase popular in the Irish republic that all politics is local - this reflects the way geographically-based constitutuencies work in the Irish Republic: special pleading is organised by constituency. In the North, there is an alternative basis emerging for cronyism, Tammeny hall type politics - sectarianism.

All that is true and, rather than the establishment of power sharing reducing the importance of sectarianism, it will actually exacerbate it. That to me is the point. Its not that 8th May wont happen, its that 8th May is one of the final stages of a process of corruption of the anti-imperialist movement from brave, sometimes even heroic fighters against injustice into hackneyed, cynical, machine politicians. The demobilisation of the Republican Movement has been a sad pathetic process of self-degradation.

But all that said, its important to recognise two points - firstly this is all driven by the deep popular fear of the pointless violence from about 84 to 94. That is a legitimate fear. For reasons, we dont need to go into, by about 74 the military campaign was increasingly doomed and afer the failure to act on the major gun-runnings from Libya of the 80s, the war was really over. The violence that came after that was all pointless and the people of the North understandably hate the memory of the terror and pointless deaths of those years.

Secondly, as I have said before, it is not impossible for the sectarian system to work, if buoyed up by cash and prosperity. Adams and Paisley themselves have lobbyed hard for money cos they know its all about money. Tammeny Hall politics is always about money - if you can grease the system, everyone goes along. What will decide the matter in the long run is whether N.I. can replicate the 'Celtic tiger' phenomenon - put that way it seems unlikely, but I wouldnt rule it out.

Consequently, I dont think political parties in N.I. should give ultimata to their audiences. The hollowness of what is going on should be reelentlessly excoriated. But That is different from saying N.I is still an irreformable statelet. So it is about 'mass struggle' and it is about campaigning against water charges.

Yes and it is an open question whether sectarian divisions will reduce as a result of the operation of the new statelet. But I very much doubt it, if you are talking about a ten or twenty year horizon. Of course, so much time can pass that the whole thing becomes pointless, but by then it will be fully institutionalised and sectarian divides that have long since become ignored can always reawaken once they have been institutionalised. Consequently, it is critical for socialists to criticise the structures of the statelet for what they are and to campaign for the proper democratic rights rather than equal priviledges for each sect.

The difficult question for socialists is how to translate the programme of the period of anti-imperialist struggle into a programme for the new period which both avoids acceptance of the corruption at the base of the new statelet and avoids standing aside from the 'bread and water' struggles that will now come more to the fore.

[Louis Pio]

Really? Is there as much sectarian division in the Republic as in British-occupied Ireland? Obviously not

Well that's all good and all except from the little fact that the largest portion of protestants moved to the North when the socalled "irish freestate" was born.

I agree that small concessions can be won under a united Ireland, but very small concessions indeed. Secterianism would still be used by the capitalists though, so that's why I think people focusing mainly on this goal are the greatest utopians. If the national question isn't dealt with nothing is solved. And in Ireland the national question can only be dealt with in a meaningfull way under socialism.

[Jim-Eire]

Unionist leaders will use secterianism for as long as they can for their own gain, particularly the DUP, but loyalist voters will constantly eat it up regardless of policy or not because they fly a union jack. To be honest I know a few loyalists and they admit loyalism is way behind republicanism in terms of doing things for their community and not just eating out of the leaders' words. The PUP (particularly David Ervine who died recently) know the score but they dont get any further then some votes in Belfast. I 100% support a united Ireland, always have, but right now I'm thinking that having nationalists and loyalists more united is going to help us a lot more then doing what Dublin or London tells us. If we saw the PUP (regardless of UVF connections) in government and not the DUP we'd see a lot more benefits for the people.


The peace process is a process of the institutionalisation of sectarianism. The establishment of a political system which can ONLY operate on the basis of people giving themselves sectarian labels is obscene. It is multi-culturalism at its worst.
What else are we going to do? Right now as much as it hurts to say it a united Ireland wouldnt work in our best interest (neither does ulster independance or a union with britain, ironically), but I dont want to go back to the days where unionists ruled the place for 50 years, can you picture the DUP in government alone under a system like first past the post? I dont even want to think about that. The peace process or rather the assembly/executive is our best option, because we dont have the luxury of good options.

I've been debating and talking with protestants and loyalists on other forums for a while now and learnt loads about them that I didnt know before (despite living around the corner from the shankill road), and I do believe that in the republic they wouldnt feel secure, they've got a siege mentality that they've had for about 300 years and its not going away soon, its the source of the problem and when they lose (or wise up to) they're identidy to Britain and unite with their neighbours then we have a perfect oppurtunity for a united Ireland. If we do it before we're just going to see another 30 years of trouble. Connolly advokated and tried to unite nationalists and loyalists before the border was put in place through the labour movement, it worked for a while.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:16 pm

Really? Is there as much sectarian division in the Republic as in British-occupied Ireland? Obviously not

Well that's all good and all except from the little fact that the largest portion of protestants moved to the North when the socalled "irish freestate" was born.

Some certainly did, as they were fearing 'rome rule', or more accurately that they feared their servants would turn on them ;)

Yet the Free State also had as its first president a protestant... it can't be in any way compared to the north. Protestants have integrated into the southern state with few problems. So I think Sev had a valid point.



I agree that small concessions can be won under a united Ireland, but very small concessions indeed. Secterianism would still be used by the capitalists though, so that's why I think people focusing mainly on this goal are the greatest utopians. If the national question isn't dealt with nothing is solved. And in Ireland the national question can only be dealt with in a meaningfull way under socialism.

The national question can only be resolved by the working class, that's the main point which I agree with you on- a capitalist united Ireland would be better than an imperialist arrangement, but the capitalist class has no interest in solving the national question.