Plenty of racists in the Nationalist community, they foam at the mouth virtually when hating the English - and the Loyalists can be just as bad about those they hate. Recently they have been beating up moslems instead of catholics. Both sides are mostly thugs - not political theorists! If on the other hand we are really talking about Sinn Fein -( P.)I.R.A., I'd say that as republicans we have little in common with them. The original I.R.A. organisation fought justly for the Irish Free State's liberty, but then a remnant of it joined to the minority party Sinn Fein turned on the government that it helped to create. The republic banned it in ( 1936? ) after a series of outrages. The Irish republic embodies most of those things that I'd like to see established everywhere - wouldn't you like something like that for Wales ? So why would we want to ally ourselves, even sentimentally, to people whose aspiration is to overthrow not merely the provincial government of Northern Ireland but the Republic of Eire aswell ? Perhaps if you are not a democratic republican you'll feel otherwise.

dear guest - take a look at the irish republic's constitution : not bad I think. If the British governments hadn't messed around 1890 - 1910 with the various home rule movements we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are in now in Wales or Ireland. The irony is that Ulster protestants were the original strong advocates of a republic in Ireland, but chose not to be in the one that emerged because of the violence of its politics - a choice vindicated in the civil war in the 1920's. I support the right of people to determine their own government and to secceed from any oppressive state's rule. Isn't that what both north and south did, according to their own lights ? And can't they choose again if they wish to ? o.k. say that a bunch of people want to set up a republic and they go about it by violent means, who ends up in power ? whoever wins they are going to be the most violent, the most ruthless, and operate by diktat not democracy. What is the point of any republican uprising if it defeats the object sought - a just society ? Ah! but then there have been plenty of dictatorships that spouted high ideals whilst depriving the people they ruled of basic rights, food, water even. Or perhaps you believe that you yourself would achieve a benevolent dictatorship ? It is in the nature of concentrated power to concentrate those around it who want a piece of it at whatever cost to those below themselves in the heirarchy. Dictatorship is after all another form of monarchy. It follows from my point of view that democracy is neccessary, most especially because it creates a consensus that binds people together. As to whether you can get a republic out of a democratic process, it depends what you hoped for. People can easily be seduced by demagogues, and so the advocates of a republic have to tirelessly expound the principles that they want other people to vote for. There are other forms of republic to the democratic ones ofcourse. Socialist republics have their laws framed by an elite from the ruling party, fascist republics much the same but to a different theory, religious republics adopted theological ideas to frame their laws and state apparatus. All of these claim knowledge of what the public's best interest is without ever consulting with the public. The essence of a any kind of republic is the rule of law, which cannot emerge out of warfare, especially civil war where all laws are abrogated.

That previous post was me.

It occurred to me afterwards that I had not put in the point that politics is about people not geography. Why would people aspiring to have Wales secceed from the British state then start arguing that Ireland is a geographic entity that demands to be incorporated as a single political entity ? What follows from that argument is that Wales is merely a region within the geographic entity that is Britain, the natural political entity ? I do not see any problem with regions within Wales opting out of the u.k. and leaving other bits ( eg. Cardiff ) behind...

The irony is that Ulster protestants were the original strong advocates of a republic in Ireland, but chose not to be in the one that emerged because of the violence of its politics - a choice vindicated in the civil war in the 1920's. Ulster protestants were strong advocates of a republic until the Act of Union in the 1800`s.The brit state then encouraged sectarianism by religous and economic discrimination of catholics,classic divide and rule.By the early 1900`s the Ulster scots were organising against any form of home rule the covenant below was before the Easter uprising. The Covenant (for men) BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V, humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognize its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names. And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant.

Some real ignorance exposed in this thread.

It occurred to me afterwards that I had not put in the point that politics is about people not geography. Why would people aspiring to have Wales secceed from the British state then start arguing that Ireland is a geographic entity that demands to be incorporated as a single political entity ? What follows from that argument is that Wales is merely a region within the geographic entity that is Britain, the natural political entity ? I do not see any problem with regions within Wales opting out of the u.k. and leaving other bits ( eg. Cardiff ) behind... Eh? The 2 situations cannot be equated. It's about sovereignty- 6 counties of Ireland remain under British rule- a breach of sovereignty. Wales does not have it's own govt. and as such is not a sovereign state. If I say that the 6 county statelet is illegitimate, it does not then mean that I believe Wales should be swallowed up into the U.K.

The 6 counties is the lab the English state has been using over the last 35 years to test out all the "anti-terrorist" measures which it will now apply in gradual measure on the British mainland to all sorts of different groupings, from Welsh or Scottish republicans to eco-activists, to animal rights activists, all in the name of "security" and "freedom"....we should be paying more attention to the Irish experience....

Kier - explain to me how you concieve of a breach of sovereignty in the Irish situation ? Speaking as a democrat, for me sovereignty is derived from the people. I'd admit that when we go into the details of how this is determined in practice mostly it becomes a bit of a murky idea, especially when one group of people are juxtaposed next to another. But as I said, politics is about people not geography - and 90 years ago the people of what is now northern ireland made it obvious what their feelings were when the imperial power governing all of ireland at the time told them that they would be ruled from Dublin and subjected to political values they hated. Maybe you think that it Unionism ugly. Maybe you think that the history of the plantations should be cited. Maybe you would cite the civil rights movement and argue the oppression of catholics. Maybe you wish that the IRA could right these wrongs by force of arms. But I don't think that you can be talking about sovereignty as I understand it.

Kier - explain to me how you concieve of a breach of sovereignty in the Irish situation ? Should I have to? The Irish people, when they last voted together as a unit in the last All-Ireland Dail of 1919, voted that they should have aunited Ireland. Collins and his ilk bartered away something that was not theirs to give away. The majority of the IRA were against the treaty, but of course they're always presented as deluded fanatics. The Irish free state is not Ireland- it is run by sell outs, racists and closet unionists. Speaking as a democrat, for me sovereignty is derived from the people. I'd admit that when we go into the details of how this is determined in practice mostly it becomes a bit of a murky idea, especially when one group of people are juxtaposed next to another. But as I said, politics is about people not geography - and 90 years ago the people of what is now northern ireland made it obvious what their feelings were when the imperial power governing all of ireland at the time told them that they would be ruled from Dublin and subjected to political values they hated. I don't understand what you're saying here. Maybe you think that it Unionism ugly. Maybe you think that the history of the plantations should be cited. Maybe you would cite the civil rights movement and argue the oppression of catholics. Maybe you wish that the IRA could right these wrongs by force of arms. But I don't think that you can be talking about sovereignty as I understand it. The British still occupy Ireland. That is a breach of Irish sovereignty as it (obviously) compromises the ability of the Irish people to act as a unit. Sovereignty means to be able to act independently without intervention from another power- it usually applies to the government who have been elected by the people. This is how globalisation compromised soveriegnty, how multinationals force the hands of govts accross the world. On your other posts: The irony is that Ulster protestants were the original strong advocates of a republic in Ireland If you're talking turn of the century- home rule enthusiasts, yes, but probably not 'Republicans' per se. but chose not to be in the one that emerged because of the violence of its politics - a choice vindicated in the civil war in the 1920's Despite the fact that the UVF were the 1st ones to bring the gun into Irish politics? (With the tacit support of the British govt. of course) I support the right of people to determine their own government and to secceed from any oppressive state's rule. Isn't that what both north and south did, according to their own lights ? And can't they choose again if they wish to ? The problem is that people are very rarely thinking on their own, but are rather being grossly manipulated by the media and other actors.

Dai wrote: If on the other hand we are really talking about Sinn Fein -( P.)I.R.A., I'd say that as republicans we have little in common with them. Yes, because we are a talking shop whereas they have fought for their country. The original I.R.A. organisation fought justly for the Irish Free State's liberty, It fought, and continues to do so, for an independent 32 County Socialist Republic. Not for the abortion that is the Irish free -state. but then a remnant of it joined to the minority party Sinn Fein turned on the government that it helped to create. The republic banned it in ( 1936? ) after a series of outrages. It fought against the treaty because it was not what their comrades had died for. The majority of IRA delegates voted against the treaty, not some fanatical minority as you present them. Has any man here the hardihood to stand up and say that it was for this our fathers suffered, that it was for this our comrades have died in the field and in the barrack yard? Austin Stack, on partition We will never be reconciled with British rule in Ireland nor will we accept any dilution of the national demand. The sovereignty and unity of the Irish Republic are inalienable and non-judicable, they can't be given away and are not a matter for reconsideration – they are absolute. Cathleen Knowles McGuirk The majority of IRA delegates voted against the treaty, not some fanatical minority as you present them. The main acts of barbarity came from the free-state forces with the help of their new British friends. Collins and Dev executed more Republicans than the British. The Irish republic embodies most of those things that I'd like to see established everywhere - wouldn't you like something like that for Wales ? Neutrality in the face of fascism; Catholicism as the religion of the state; Banning of abortion; Homosexuality illegal until the mid-90's; execution foe true republicans etc etc. What a paradise. So why would we want to ally ourselves, even sentimentally, to people whose aspiration is to overthrow not merely the provincial government of Northern Ireland but the Republic of Eire aswell ? Perhaps if you are not a democratic republican you'll feel otherwise :roll: . They want to overthrow both states because they are illegal. D'uh.

I keep meaning to come back to your comments Kier and provide some replies but it requires some work and I am short of time. I can however see why you don't get the point that sovereignty is derived from the people - when you are referring to the Irish people it is an idealised notion of nation, something typical of Fascistic thought. You are making proclamations on behalf of other people and calling those who don't agree with your prescriptions for them traitors.

Must have dawdled too long over that and been logged out automatically!