Ireland: Colin Duffy to refuse food

Below is a statement from the family of Colin Duffy, one of the Irish republicans arrested after the recent attacks in the six counties, stating that he is refusing to take food in protest over the injustice of his case.

**UPDATE: Since posting this, the news has come out of prisoners in Maghaberry prison going on hunger strike in solidarity with the Antrim Interrogation centre prisoners (including Duffy), currently being held under UK terror laws that allow 28 day internment without trial.
It also appears that the killings that sparked this whole fiasco have had at least one positive effect.**

**UPDATE 2: After a Belfast court overturned the police order allowing the ongoing detention of Duffy and five others, forcing their release, Colin Duffy has been re-arrested. See the comments section below for his family's response.

---

Colin Duffy to refuse food: Statement from Duffy Family

COLIN DUFFY - A CASE OF TRIAL BY MEDIA
OPPOSE THE NEW FORM OF INTERNMENT

In the immediate aftermath of the fatal shootings in Antrim and Craigavon, the media and some local politicians hysterically engaged in what can only be described as frenzy of finger pointing and ‘felon setting’.

As each politician and reporter attempted to outdo the comments of each other regarding who may have been responsible, a deliberate picture was painted that resulted in the media and politicians identifying who ought to be arrested. Our family member Colin was one of those and, in due course, the PSNI obliged.

Colin’s arrest came as no surprise to us, his family. Due to the unsubstantiated comments made by sections of the media and by Stormont politicians, it was our great fear and worry that he would be ‘set up’ as a scapegoat. Our family’s concerns and worries have been reinforced by two very important facts that both the media and politicians have failed to report or comment upon.

Firstly, Colin was visited at his home four days home before his arrest by the PSNI to inform him that a threat had been made on his life. The PSNI photographed Colin at his front door.

Why did the PSNI not arrest him then?

Secondly, following his arrest, Colin’s legal representative was astounded to be informed that the arrest was “not based on evidence”. In the absence of any evidential basis for his arrest, it is clear that the PSNI had other sinister motivations for detaining him.

It is the view of his family that the PSNI’s motivations are based upon sheer vindictiveness and also as a reaction to the media frenzy.

It was similar vindictiveness, spurred on by a hostile media, which led to the wrongful arrest and lengthy imprisonment of innocent people in the past such the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Family and the Guildford Four. More recently, we have witnessed, in the cases of Sean Hoey and Chris Ward exactly what the PSNI are capable of.

How many more people will be wrongfully detained for prolonged periods of time under the new form of internment before someone says “Stop, not in my name’?

While the Duffy family are calling for Colin's release, we are also fully aware that there are others detained under the current British legislation which can hold them for 28 days. We would like to take this opportunity to call for their immediate release also.

Colin has now been detained since Saturday March 14th. In an attempt to bring this ‘farce’ to an end, he is now refusing to take food in order to highlight the injustice he is suffering.

We have all been down this road before and know where it can end unless true leadership is shown.

Justice is a right. It is not a gift to be given or removed from citizens by a police force acting at the behest of local politicians and the media.

Please do whatever you can to ensure that Colin receives justice NOW!

STAND UP FOR JUSTICE! FREE COLIN DUFFY!

Northern Ireland: An Unholy Alliance

Irish democratic socialist republican group éirígí responds to the media bias and misinformation being bandied about in the wake of recent attacks in the Six Counties of northern Ireland.

Two other responses can be read here and here. Some good background on the issue can be found here.

********************************************

16/03/09

éirígí director of publicity Seán Mac Brádaigh analyses the recent media reaction to events in Ireland.

An Unholy Alliance: What lies behind media coverage of recent events?

A spectre haunts Ireland, the spectre of republicanism!!!

Media attacks on Irish republicans are not a new phenomenon. As long as there has been resistance to British rule in Ireland there have been journalists willing to do Britain’s work and attempt to demonise and criminalise republicans. The Sunday Independent in particular has a long tradition of anti-republicanism. Almost 100 years ago under the ownership of William Martin Murphy, it acted as cheerleader for British army recruitment; encouraging Irish men to go and fight in Britain’s imperial wars. Those who stayed with the Irish Volunteers and fought in the 1916 Easter Rising were described by the same paper as being involved in ‘criminal madness’. According to the paper ‘no terms of denunciation would be too strong to apply to those responsible for the insane and criminal Rising of last week’. Not satisfied with the fact that following the Rising thirteen men had already been executed; the Sunday Independent continued to bay for more republican blood. The editorial of 12th May was explicit in its demands:

‘Certain of the leaders remain undealt with, and the part they played was worse than that of those who have paid the extreme penalty. Are they, because of an indiscriminate demand for clemency, to get off lightly, while others who were no more prominent have been executed?’

Their wish was duly granted. On 12th May 1916 a seriously wounded James Connolly, the man who had fought so vigorously against William Martin Murphy during the 1913 Dublin Lockout, was strapped to a chair and executed by a British army firing squad. The same fate befell Seán Mac Diarmada.

So it was no surprise to find that last weekend the Sunday Independent launched an ill-informed diatribe against republicanism in general and éirígí in particular. The author of the piece is the paper’s so-called ‘security’ correspondent, and committed fantasist Jim Cusack. Jim Cusack is an experienced hand at the black art; he has been the most persistent advocate of the Sunday Independent’s particular brand of anti-republicanism. Author of a book on the UVF, Cusack has built his ‘journalistic’ career on the back of spreading lies and innuendo about Irish republicans. He also regularly acts as a mouthpiece for Gardaí, with consistent claims on their behalf that they lack the resources to deal with crime.

The fog of anti-republicanism clouds his approach to many issues: for instance he has argued that British collusion with loyalist death squads in the 1974 Dublin/Monaghan bombings is an ‘unfounded conspiracy theory’. Renowned for a liberal interpretation of the truth and a less than rigorous approach to checking his sources; Cusack has on occasion been made to look less than competent. The 2006 Dublin riot during the ‘Love Ulster’ parade is a case in point. Firstly Cusack claimed that fellow fantasist Willie Frazier’s Love Ulster inspired march was no loyalist affair rather a march of ‘victims of IRA violence’. Unsurprisingly, Cusack neglected to inform his readers that the ‘Love Ulster’ organisation was founded by a coalition of loyalist groups including loyalist paramilitaries. Or that in August 2005, UDA leader Jackie McDonald was on hand to launch the ‘Love Ulster’ newspaper, as it was offloaded from a boat at Larne harbour, in an attempt to rekindle memories of the UVF gun-running operation at the same harbour in 1914. Cusack claimed that the riots had been co-ordinated by a coalition of republican groups.

Below is a short excerpt from his interview with Newstalk radio the morning after the riot:

Jim Cusack: There was a fair a bit of planning. Absolutely, a fair bit of planning. There was 2 or 3 groups involved here, it wasn't just them. And also, it wasn’t just Republican Sinn Féin, there was other groups as well. There was the political wing of the Real IRA and there was almost certainly in collusion with other groups and Sinn Féin people were there in the background.

NewsTalk106: Jim, where is your evidence for that?! You are the only person I’ve heard saying this.

Jim Cusack: No I’m not...

...

Jim Cusack: What Gardaí aren’t saying this?

NewsTalk106: The Gardaí are saying they still don’t know.

Jim Cusack: Well y…Ask the guards. Why don’t you ask the guards, (well, you know what I mean but the guards, oh sorry, the guards [?]broke an[?])…

NewsTalk106: They are still saying they are not sure if the riot was orchestrated – they actually don’t know, as we speak.

Jim Cusack: No, no, no, you’re quoting official spokesmen (you know) and they don’t say anything that’s any significance whatsoever. The Garda management made a mess of this here – whether or not they had the intelligence and I believe they did have the intelligence. They just didn’t act on it and this got out of hand.

NewsTalk106: If they had the intelligence, Jim, why would they not act on it?

Jim Cusack: Well, there’s all sorts of reasons for that there (I mean), they don’t want to over-spend on overtime and stuff like that. There’s resource and human resource led management in the police force which really doesn’t tally with the needs of what’s going on in the city sometimes.

Clearly, Jim doesn’t like to let facts get in the way of the particular fanciful narrative he has created. Indeed he has been criticised both by community representatives and the Gardaí for some of his wilder fantasies and sensationalist reporting. Last April in a front-page piece for the Sunday Independent he claimed that ‘carnage was averted at a funeral in Limerick after a man armed with an automatic handgun was prevented from gaining access to the cemetery during the burial of murder victim James Cronin.’ The piece had absolutely no basis in fact and was dismissed as ‘wild speculation’. His latest fantasising involves éirígí and is a fine example of feverish imagination and appalling journalism.

It is difficult to know where to begin analysing this piece because from the outset Cusack gets some very basic facts completely wrong. A cursory search of the éirígí website would provide some information on the background and formation of éirígí as a campaigns group in Dublin in May 2006. Cusack and his political ‘sources’ it seems have other ideas and would like to create an altogether different narrative: one that fits the Sunday Independent and his new political ‘sources’ agenda. So he reports as ‘fact’ that ‘éirígí was formed in early 2007 after a group split from Sinn Féin when the party voted to support policing in the north’. This is simply wrong. And it is an attempt to suggest that éirígí has but a singular agenda. Unfortunately for Mr. Cusack and his new political ‘sources’ there has been much published about éirígí since its formation in May 2006, some of it in fact written by Cusack himself, and which dispels this particular lie.

Lest he has forgotten, let us remind Jim what he wrote in the Sunday Independent on 28th September last: ‘the decision by the Sinn Féin party leadership to soften its socialist position on economic and what are termed core republican issues has led to resignations and defections to a group called éirígí [which] started life two years ago in Dublin’. So which is it Jim? Perhaps he might return to his political ‘sources’ to clarify the matter. Or perhaps if he can’t trust them or indeed himself he might check with his peers. He could start with fellow ‘security’ correspondent Tom Brady, who wrote in the Irish Independent back in July 2006 that the Garda Special Branch was ‘closely monitoring members of éirígí’. Or he could have checked the story published by fellow Sunday Independent journalist Maeve Sheehan on 21st September last, which reported that éirígí was founded in 2006. One imagines that checking facts and sources is the staple of any credible journalist. While Cusack’s political ‘sources’ might be keen to portray éirígí in a particular light and to manipulate facts and spread falsehoods, a story published in the Village magazine by Scott Millar, on 22nd June 2006 would have provided Cusack with at least an accurate date as to the formation of éirígí. The article briefly quoted current éirígí chairperson, Brian Leeson: ‘This group has emerged from Dublin-based political activists who felt that what was needed was a credible campaigning group that was going to promote Socialist Republican politics in Dublin and challenge a lot of the inequalities we see around us.’ So while Cusack and his political ‘sources’ would like to portray éirígí as simply the ‘anti-policing party’, fundamentals such as the truth have got in the way of that particular line.

We then move on to Cusack and his ‘sources’ description of éirígí as an ‘extremist group which has sought to link itself with legitimate protest over the last two years’. The falsehood that éirígí was established in early 2007 has already been dispelled. Now to the allegation of ‘extremism’ and ‘manipulation’ of other groups: what does Cusack and his ‘sources’ mean by ‘extremist’? éirígí is unashamedly a republican and socialist party. It seeks to be part of a movement that establishes a republic based upon fundamental principles of liberty, equality and solidarity.

We stand by the pledge of Wolfe Tone ‘to unite catholic, protestant and dissenter under the common name of Irishman’ and his belief that ‘our freedom must be had at all hazards. If the men of property will not help us they must fall; we will free ourselves by the aid of that large and respectable class of the community - the men of no property.’

Like Fintan Lalor we wish to see Ireland ‘free from the centre to the sea’.

We believe as James Connolly did that ‘the British government has no right in Ireland, never had any right in Ireland and never can have any right in Ireland’.

And unlike those who pay it lip service; we stand by the commitments set out in the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil:

‘the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies to be indefeasible, and in the language of our first President. Pádraíg Mac Phiarais, we declare that the Nation's sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the Nation, but to all its material possessions, the Nation's soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the Nation, and with him we reaffirm that all right to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare’.

If this is what the Sunday Independent and their new political ‘sources’ consider to be ‘extremist’ we are proud to carry that label.

éirígí does not seek legitimacy from any group or campaigns. We have not as Cusack implies sought cover behind any group. We are an open democratic political party that has organised political campaigns and events in conjunction with many other groups and individuals. We were proud to play our part in the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty last summer. Unlike the establishment we respect the democratically expressed will of the people in rejecting the Treaty. However, as the Treaty will be put to the people a second time we look forward to working alongside our colleagues in the Campaign Against the European Union Constitution (CAEUC) and defeating it a second time. We take inspiration from the community in Rossport, Co. Mayo who have been harassed and bullied by the state and demonised by the media and will continue our work in the Shell to Sea campaign. We are equally proud to take our place alongside the massed ranks of those who oppose imperial wars. As affiliates of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and the Irish Anti-War Movement we will continue to oppose the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and support the people of Palestine in their struggle against Israeli oppression. We will take our place alongside workers on the 30th March, as we did last month when 120,000 people marched in opposition to government cuts. éirígí will not be deflected from any of this work. We will continue to organise politically. We do not require nor desire the approval of nationalist politicians and we certainly do not seek ‘legitimacy’ as others might from imperial powers in London or Washington.

There is a bizarre twist to Cusack’s piece which is somewhat baffling. Not a man known for his regular jaunts to west Belfast, he claims in his piece that the homes of éirígí members in that part of the country were picketed following the killing of two British soldiers in Antrim last week. Clearly his new ‘sources’ are attempting to portray éirígí as a group that is isolated within the republican heartland of west Belfast and its members treated as ‘outcasts’. This came as a great surprise to the very many members and supporters of éirígí in west Belfast. There were no pickets of any description outside the homes of members of éirígí. Indeed had Jim, the not so intrepid reporter, actually done some work and bothered to check his sources he might have discovered that éirígí in west Belfast hosted a very successful function last Friday evening on the Whiterock Road. The event was advertised in advance and held to mark the 90th anniversary of the First Dáil. It was filled with members, supporters and members of the public, with no pickets to be seen. Perhaps Cusack might like to elaborate on his ‘source’ for this particular fantasy.

So there it is. A tissue of lies and fabrications served to undermine legitimate political activism. Republicans should not be surprised nor deflected by this. There are clearly many forces at work. The fact is the media and certain political representatives and organisations are seeking to criminalise and demonise republicanism. That they are doing so in conjunction with British state forces and the reactionaries of the Sunday Independent, and other erroneous outlets, is a worrying development. It is a tactic tried and tested by countless British administrations. It has failed every time. And it will fail again. éirígí will vigorously defend its right to organise politically. It will defend the integrity of its organisation and membership. It will not allow the gutter journalism of a Sunday Independent hack, nor mischievous briefings from anonymous political and state ‘sources’ to deflect it from playing its full part in rebuilding republicanism. There has been much recent bluster from nationalist politicians about denying republican groups room to breathe. éirígí does not seek nor require the approval of any politician. It will continue to work alongside others in building popular support for republican and socialist demands.

Print-friendly version

Responses to the events in Ireland's north

There have been a number of different responses to the recent attacks in the Six Counties in northern Ireland, most of them stridenty critical, and for good reason.

The responses and some analyses are listed below , followed by an important and relevant piece from James Connolly, the heroic socialist revolutionary who fell in the Easter 1916 Uprising, and whose work remains some of the best for understanding the Irish struggle, and what the best solutions might be.

Sinn Fein
Éirigí
Eamonn McCann
SWP
Lenin's Tomb
Socialist Party
Brian Freeney
Socialist Democracy (and this)
A musical response

James Connolly - Physical Force in Irish Politics (1899)

---

From Workers’ Republic, July 22, 1899.
Transcribed by The James Connolly Society in 1997.

---

Ireland occupies a position among the nations of the earth unique in a great variety of its aspects, but in no one particular is this singularity more marked than in the possession of what is known as a ‘physical force party’ – a party, that is to say, whose members are united upon no one point, and agree upon no single principle, except upon the use of physical force as the sole means of settling the dispute between the people of this country and the governing power of Great Britain.

Other countries and other peoples have, from time to time, appealed to what the first French Revolutionists picturesquely described as the “sacred right of insurrection,” but in so appealing they acted under the inspiration of, and combated for, some great governing principle of political or social life upon which they, to a man, were in absolute agreement. The latter-day high falutin ‘hillside’ man, on the other hand, exalts into a principle that which the revolutionsists of other countries have looked upon as a weapon, and in his gatherings prohibits all discussion of those principles which formed the main strength of his prototypes elsewhere and made the successful use of that weapon possible. Our people have glided at different periods of the past century from moral force agitation, so-called, into physical force rebellion, from constitutionalism into insurrectionism, meeting in each the same failure and the same disaster and yet seem as far as ever from learning the great truth that neither method is ever likely to be successful until they first insist that a perfect agreement upon the end to be attained should be arrived at as a starting-point of all our efforts.

To the reader unfamiliar with Irish political history such a remark seems to savour almost of foolishness, its truth is so apparent; but to the reader acquainted with the inner workings of the political movements of this country the remark is pregnant with the deepest meaning. Every revolutionary effort in Ireland has drawn the bulk of its adherents from the ranks of the disappointed followers of defeated constitutional movements. After having exhausted their constitutional efforts in striving to secure such a modicum of political power as would justify them to their own consciences in taking a place as loyal subjects of the British Empire, they, in despair, turned to thoughts of physical force as a means of attaining their ends. Their conception of what constitutes freedom was in no sense changed or revolutionised; they still believed in the political form of freedom which had been their ideal in their constitutional days; but no longer hoping for it from the acts of the British Parliament, they swung over into the ranks of the ‘physical force’ men as the only means of attaining it.

The so-called physical force movement of today in like manner bases its hopes upon the disgust of the people over the failure of the Home Rule movement; it seeks to enlist the people under its banners, not so much by pointing out the base ideals of the constitutionalists or the total inadequacy of their pet measures to remedy the evils under which the people suffer, as by emphasising the greater efficacy of physical force as a national weapon. Thus, the one test of an advanced Nationalist is, in their opinion, one who believes in physical force. It may be the persons so professing to believe are Republicans; it may be they are believers in monarchy; it may be that Home Rule would satisfy them; it may be that they despise Home Rule. No matter what their political faith may be, if only they are prepared to express belief in the saving grace of physical force, they are acclaimed as advanced Nationalists - worthy descendants of ‘the men of ’98.’ The ’98 Executive, organised in the commencement by professed believers in the physical force doctrine, started by proclaiming its adherence to the principle of national independence “as understood by Wolfe Tone and the United Irishmen,” and in less than twelve months from doing so, deliberately rejected a similar resolution and elected on its governing body men notorious for their Royalist proclivities. As the ’98 Executive represents the advanced Nationalists of Ireland, this repudiation of the Republican faith of the United Irishmen is an interesting corroboration of the truth of our statement that the advanced Nationalists of our day are utterly regardless of principle and only attach importance to methods – an instance of putting the cart before the horse, absolutely unique in its imbecility and unparalleled in the history of the world.

It may be interesting, then, to place before our readers the Socialist Republican conception of the functions and uses of physical force in a popular movement. We neither exalt it into a principle nor repudiate it as something not to be thought of. Our position towards it is that the use or non-use of force for the realisation of the ideas of progress always has been and always will be determined by the attitude, not of the party of progress, but of the governing class opposed to that party. If the time should arrive when the party of progress finds its way to freedom barred by the stubborn greed of a possessing class entrenched behind the barriers of law and order; if the party of progress has indoctrinated the people at large with the new revolutionary conception of society and is therefore representative of the will of a majority of the nation, if it has exhausted all the peaceful means at its disposal for the purpose of demonstrating to the people and their enemies that the new revolutionary ideas do possess the suffrage of the majority; then, but not till then, the party which represents the revolutionary idea is justified in taking steps to assume the powers of government, and in using the weapons of force to dislodge the usurping class or government in possession, and treating its members and supporters as usurpers and rebels against the constituted authorities always have been created. In other words, Socialists believe that the question of force is of very minor importance; the really important question is of the principles upon which is based the movement that may or may not need the use of force to realise its object.

Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation – the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government.

Thus the policy of the Socialist Republicans is seen to be the only wise one. “Educate that you may be free”; principles first, methods afterwards. If the advocacy of physical force failed to achieve success or even to effect an uprising when the majority were unenfranchised and the secret ballot unknown, how can it be expected to succeed now that the majority are in possession of voting power and the secret ballot safeguards the voter?

The ballot-box was given us by our masters for their purpose; let us use it for our own. Let us demonstrate at that ballot-box the strength and intelligence of the revolutionary idea; let us make the hustings a rostrum from which to promulgate our principles; let us grasp the public powers in the interest of the disinherited class; let us emulate our fathers and, like the ‘true men of ’98,’ place ourselves in line with the most advanced thought of our age and drawing inspiration and hope from the spectacle presented by the world-wide revolt of the workers, prepare for the coming of the day when the Socialist working-class of Ireland will, through its elected representatives, present its demand for freedom from the yoke of a governing master class or nation – the day on which the question of moral or physical force shall be finally decided.

"Twenty Theses on Sinn Fein's Strategy"

The situation in Ireland has been undergoing some interesting changes of late, which the wombats will take up in a more detailed post soon. Not least - and not least contentious - is the role that Sinn Fein are playing there, and whether or not they have "sold out" in the struggle for a Democratic Socialist Republic.

There have been various splits in the republican movement over the years, and little has changed, with a new split developing a little over a year ago, mostly in Dublin, called éirígí. There have also been some moves of late to regroup those outside of Sinn Fein. So, the role of Sinn Fein, and whether they are a block to the movement or not, has become one of pressing urgency.

The wombats are here re-posting a contribution from Domhnall Ó Cobhthaigh to the Marxmail e-list as part of a discussion going on there. We do not necessarily agree with his views, but consider them an interesting appraisal of one perspective on the question.

"Twenty Theses on Sinn Fein's Strategy"

Domhnall Ó Cobhthaigh

Phil has written a number of articles in which he attempts to portray Sinn Fein and the Republican movement as having 'sold out' and myself as covering for them.

Before jumping to conclusions people should understand the situation in Ireland sufficiently. The only person emailing facts was attacked for the source of their facts - Phil would rather use epithets to conduct a 'marxist' analysis.

I don't have a huge amount of time to explain my take on things (insofar as I can express it openly) but here goes...

1. Sinn Fein are as committed to achieving its ultimate objective of a Thirty-two County Democratic Socialist Republic as it has ever been.

2. That narrow programme would probably garner no more than about 10% of the total vote in a popular election either side of the border - socialism itself right now is not a huge selling point in an Ireland which has just experienced considerable growth as a result of an FDI-led growth spurt. National feeling in the Free State is largely limited by an acknowledgement of the need for the consent of a majority in the north for reunification. Parties which stand on a strong socialist platform like the SWP get paltry levels of support.

3. So logically, Sinn Fein must promote that agenda by the most effective means possible: politics. In the context of the current 'agreement', Sinn Fein believe that its political goals can be achieved through political (and democratic) means. This is not a result of Sinn Fein lowering its standard from revolutionary to reformist but as a direct result of the success of the IRA's military campaign against the British. In a sense, the state is no longer unassailable from within as it has been forced to accord equal legitimacy to Sinn Fein's demands to those of bourgeois parties.

4. From this perspective, the northern state itself is a battle-ground. Sinn Fein's entry into PSNI structures is a case-in-point where the party is waging a determined struggle on a range of issues from the routine arming of the PSNI to community-empowerment policing structures (CRJ). Elements within the PSNI are struggling very hard to prevent that agenda. British MI5 as a result of the negotiations has committed themselves to playing an external role in that struggle.

5. All negotiations are a concretisation of struggle, they reflect the relative balance of forces at the time of the negotiations themselves. That is one reason why the process of Irish integration has grown rather than shrunk over time - it reflects the growth of popular support for Sinn Fein in electoral and political terms across the north and border counties.

6. Sinn Fein attract around 25-30% of the vote in the north currently. Despite historically low levels of mass mobilisation or political engagement across Irish society, Sinn Fein does still command a substantial mass level of adherence. This is primarily because the party does not campaign directly on its ultimate objective but on its immediate policy platform which is more limited and focussed around Irish reunification. While the party has a substantial vote, in reality, it ends up that the other parties who constitute around 70% of electoral representation tend to side with those elements within the state which wish to hold back radical change.

7. Despite the fact that other political parties represent little by way of substance and SF as a representative political party 'punching above its weight' - the party is badly outgunned across most sites of struggle because other parties tend to end up effectively acting as conduits for the status quo civil service agenda. The end result is that change has been less than might be hoped for but a constant demand for change across all aspects of local and regional government. However, the party is achieving greater successes by linking outwards with civil society and popular opinion as its agenda is largely 'populist' and as such the civil service agenda can be confronted effectively where issues are opened out to the people.

8. Key to this is the trend within the party which emphasizes a strategic commitment to participatory democracy and participatory forms of governance.

9. As with anything the development of the party in this direction is combined and uneven.

10. The DUP which is currently acting as the bulwark of unionism is under serious pressure from its grassroots from engaging with Republicans in a power sharing administration and in all-Ireland institutions. This may or may not have impacts on the viability of unionism in the medium-term.

11. SF has not accepted consent. However, the party has taken the step of working within a system where consent is enshrined. This was the most substantial compromise made by the party and some found it difficult to accede to working in such a framework saying that this amounted to an ideological commitment to consent. At the same time, the current arrangements reflect the opinion of the bulk of Irish people and the position of every single other party of substance in the island. No change is possible without proceeding from the standpoint of the bulk of Irish people - as such, the party has been forced to negotiate and act within a framework outside itself. This is a substantial problem that radical critics of Sinn Fein are in denial about - the people themselves do not view the continued existence of the North as a British colony as illegal. As a consequence military options do not have sufficient levels of support to be sustainable. Indeed, it is likely that political options of rejecting the Peace process will leave their adherents sidelined in political terms from the action. The situation post-1998 is qualitatively different than previous to it given the overwhelming support of the Irish people for the new arrangements.

12. Economics lies largely in favour of Irish reunification. In terms of Agriculture, Environment, the Economy and Energy the argument for all-Ireland approaches is unassailable. Even hardened pro-British parties like the DUP are now calling for the adoption of integration across these sectors. Any such changes to the base will have tremendous impact on the political super-structure over time. As Engels said, "According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance the determining factor of history."

13. Sinn Fein is not the only party to recognise this. The largest party of the Free State (Fianna Fail) has indicated it will now actively pursue an all-Ireland structure. Fianna Fail is the definitive party of the Irish big bourgeoisie (mixing both comprador and national bourgeoisie elements). This is reflective of the fact that the Free State [Dublin] Bourgeoisie recognise that they have a natural interest in exploiting opportunities on an all-Ireland scale. The rate of investment from Dublin to Belfast is substantial and is supported by the Dublin Government pumping £600m into infrastructure for the north. This money is not for nothing. Dublin is preparing the ground for reunification on the back of economic integration.

14. This move north is on the back of Fianna Fail's success in hammering Sinn Fein in the recent Free State elections. Fianna Fail decimated the left in those elections - the SPI (CWI) which had a TD and was hoping for a second lost their only seat. Sinn Fein went down from 5 TDs to 4 but this reflected a failure to achieve grandiose targets of up to 15 seats. In essence, this reflected the working class hopefully voting en-masse for the party of the big bourgeoisie to retain 'the good times'. As such, it is a transcient victory and Fianna Fail recognise that with its substantial northern electoral base, Sinn Fein remain a serious threat to Fianna Fail - largely because of that party's core support deriving from the working class and the potential to lose a fraction of the (powerful) national bourgeoisie to Sinn Fein - as has happened in the north.

15. Fianna Fail are also interested in the money. Sinn Fein despite its limited achievements has remained as a bulwark against corruption and has been very active driving an equality agenda. This does not suit big business interests and Fianna Fail believe that Sinn Fein need to be and can be attacked on their home ground.

16. While this represents a serious threat to Sinn Fein given the disparity between the level of support for Sinn Fein's ultimate objectives of a Socialist Republic and its current levels of political support, there are a range of opportunities associated with Fianna Fail coming north. Not least is that Fianna Fail will hasten Irish unity as they will be able to speak more effectively to sections of unionism which see their loyalty as stemming from material advantage. In the future, this economic-based loyalty to Britain will be replaced by a more pragmatic attitude based on profit-making. Given the all-Ireland economic dynamic this is a very persuasive factor.

17. Sinn Fein contesting elections against Fianna Fail in the north will also sharpen the party's own focus on what it stands for. Key to this is a commitment to Equality and Participation. Equally, the struggle to effectively democratise the Police through the accountability mechanisms negotiated will assume greater importance in awakening wider consciousness around the need for radical outcomes. Sinn Fein's work within institutions and use of political power will inevitably and eventually contribute to a radicalisation of Irish society, north and south, as cross-border institutions bed down.

18. At the same time, power-sharing in the north has opened the door to Sinn Fein engaging with unionism at grassroots levels and will accelerate the process whereby working class unionists begin to challenge their political affiliations to conservative parties. This process, however, is much more involved than might be otherwise assumed. It reflects the strength of the ideology of loyalism and sectarianism. In a sense, it is akin to countering attitudes of racism in the US south.

19. The contours of the struggle are therefore complicated. It is guaranteed that anyone without a comprehensive understanding of localised politics based on practice will come unstuck if they attempt to apply simplistic models to strategy. Ireland is divided artificially but this division is reflected in popular consciousness. Ireland is at once a neo-colony and a colony. Large sections of its indigenous working class are materially privileged and have a material interest in maintaining this relative privilege. That situation is doubly complicated in the north. I seriously doubt whether Sinn Fein will be taking any advice from groups or individuals who have been signally ineffective in advancing their struggle in their own countries.

20. Sinn Fein's entry into institutions cannot be dissevered from the success of the IRA's military campaign. This campaign has opened the state up for struggle. Effectively, SF are engaged in a war of position with elements from within the state itself and other political trends. The British Government, itself composed of various trends, retains a material interest in Ireland as expressed variously by the Northern Ireland Office, British MI5, etc. The direct interest of the British Government, in particular its Treasury, in curtailing moves towards further devolution or independence is related to its struggle to contain Scottish demands for Independence. None of these factors are simply coterminous and they can be contradictory. All of which makes for a variety of viewpoints.

Nothing is guaranteed for Sinn Fein and the Republican movement. The state itself may be able to withstand Republicans and tie down their struggle for years. However, I doubt this given the economic and political trends we see manifesting themselves today. Similarly, Sinn Fein remains focussed on its goals so let us hope they are successful. If not, Eirigi is performing a useful task in collecting all those individuals who find that they cannot believe in the current strategy so I wish them well too. If Sinn Fein is to succeed, it will need all the allies it can get in prosecuting the struggle.

I hope that this explains things a little more than Phil's simplistic rantings about Sinn Fein's engagement in a capitalist state and just giving up on the freedom struggle.

Le meas,

DoC