The 1989 General Election and Fish Merchant Arthur Morgan stands for Sinn Fein in Louth. Amongst the issues were the Rod Licence (a number of Independent candidates stood in the 1989 General Election on the Rod Licence issue) and Environmental issues. Louth, because of its proximity to Sellafield, was an area where there was continued suspicion of the health impact of Sellafield.
Saving the counties Hospitals were an issue also. Arthur failed to win a seat.

Sometimes politicians are faced with pivotal decisions.  They know that it they get the decision right, they will gain huge political credibility.  If they get it wrong, they will have done themselves terrible damage.   It is the equivalent of walking into that fantasy room with two doors.  One leads to Glory.  The other leads to underachievement or disaster. 

In the last couple of months, the main political theatre has been the negotiations between the DUP and Sinn Fein, with the Government acting as honest broker over the devolution of Policing and Justice.  In my previous post on this subject, I wrote a sketch about the DUP aeroplane which was in trouble.   All the main political players were in that sketch, except one – the increasingly frustrated and discontented Northern Ireland electorate.

A few days ago, the Belfast Telegraph reported on an extraordinary poll which was about the popularity of politicians.  Unionist politicians have not commented about that poll officially.  They will have been shocked and appalled to learn that not only is Martin McGuinness the most popular minister.  Some of his popularity is coming from the Unionist side.  By contrast, Peter Robinson is one of the most unpopular politicians.

I have argued before that we need more opinion polls in Northern Ireland because they do help to drive political thinking.  In fact, I would be quite happy to excahnge Government money spent on one of the useless Northern Ireland quangos with research into popular opinion instead.

Putting together this poll and the TV coverage of workshops which discuss the views of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, there seems to be a clear (cross-community) pattern emerging of frustration that politicians are not able to do business together under the power-sharing arrangements.  

The unpopularity of politicians such as Peter Robinson and Catriona Ruane are the result of perception that they are intransigent and unwilling to compromise.   All politicians in Northern Ireland ought to take these developments very seriously.  The poliltical party on the Unionist side that grasps this nettle the fastest is the one most likely to prosper in the medium and long term future.

So where does this leave Peter Robinson? 

Two days ago, the Newsletter published an article by Liam Clarke.  The Article was a sketch depicting a “Dear Peter” letter to the First Minister.   It may have been mockery but it seemed to cut like a knife through butter.  The following soundbite could haunt Robinson for a long time

“You are like a chess player who takes every pawn you can, forgetting that that isn’t how the game is won.”

Clarke has reached the view, as I have, that Peter Robinson, having previously handled the P & J negotiations very well, has now lost ground.  He has ”over-cooked” his conditions for allowing the devolution to happen. 

Peter Robinson is no fool.  He will have calculated that he needed Sinn Fein to cave in on parades before he could count P & J devolution as a gain.   Tactically, he was right.  Strategically, he was wrong.   If he had not insisted on the abolition of the parades commission, he may have faced heavy fire from the right and from Jim Allister.  However, he would have been able to present himself as a Unionist politician that gets the business done.  

The UUP is in a difficult position at the moment.  Their policy on parades has hardly developed since the days of David Trimble and Drumcree.  Not much has been published about parades by the UUP lately with the exception, perhaps, of the fleeting reference by Sir Reg Empey at the UUP party conference speech.  He indicated that in the negotiations, parades had to be dealt with.  He did not elaborate. 

The UUP’s policy on devolution of P & J has until now been as sceptical as the DUP.  That must now change, as a matter of urgency.   With Gordon Brown having agreed to more funding, there is no security issue remaining which justifies the obstruction of the transfer of these powers.

I am fully aware that the Parades Commission is not the most popular official body with many in the UUP.  At the moment, the role of the Commission is being considered by Lord Ashdown’s committee on the strategic review on parading.  Furthermore, an interim report has recommended abolition of the commission with their powers to be replaced by local councils.

I am not going to write a lengthy article here about the merits of the UUP’s policy on parades.  With the Ashdown review not having completed its work, now is not the time.  I will just say that for the moment –  pending the outcome of that report and giving full consideration to it – I retain an open mind. 

I am not therefore going to suggest, at this stage, that the UUP change its policy in relation to the Parades commission.  However, I would ask its leaders to consider putting clear blue water between itself and the DUP.   It can decide that there should not be a negotiation linkage between the Parades issue and devolution of the transfer of Police and Justice powers. 

The DUP position is that it will not transfer P & J without the Parades Commission becoming abolished.  That stance is ridiculous.  It has no chance of being agreed by the Nationalists.  If the Ashdown recommendations are going to have any credibility with Nationalists, they firstly have to demonstrate that they have considered possible reform of the Commission in order to address whatever shortcomings they find with it.  Secondly, those findings have to overcome the argument that decisions would become compromised as being subject to political interference if decisions are given to Council officers.  That will be an uphill struggle for Ashdown but let us leave that argument for another day. 

There is no reason, as I have argued previously, why parades should be devolved at the same time as all other aspects of P & J.  I have suggested already that Sinn Fein could be asked to merely commit itself to giving consideration to the Ashdown proposals when they are finally published (without committing them). 

I would now like to see the UUP come out with a new policy statement.  That statement would make it clear that they can see a way in which the impasse can be broken.  In doing that, they would turn heads amongst the public.  Suddenly, they would become the party that can do buisiness with the other side.  That would be taking the door to glory.

Monday was an extraordinary day for Northern Ireland politics.  Firstly, there was the opinion poll, reported in the Belfast Telegraph showing the Martin McGuinness was Northern Ireland’s most popular politician.

Later, we had the announcement, confirmed today, that Fianna Fail had its first elected representative in Northern Ireland in Gerry McHugh, MLA.

Gerry McHugh was, until 2007, a member of Sinn Fein.  He left Sinn Fein in November 2007 citing “lack of democracy” in his own party as the reason for his departure.  According to a BBC report, he also said this

“I feel the direction Sinn Fein is taking is more about appeasement of the British government and administrating British rule in Ireland rather than working towards the end of British occupation.”

On Slugger December 7, 2007, he is also reported as having said this

“Assembly structures support this – at both committee and plenary level unionists have majority control.  What was agreed at St Andrews cannot be delivered without unionist approval.”

Further along, the post also said

‘Mr McHugh said Sinn Féin’s decision to endorse policing in the north was a “factor” in his decision.

“I have no difficulties with the idea of civil policing but I have a difficulty with the excessive amounts of MI5 and military spooks operating in the six counties,” he said.

So it appeared at the time that he was against the St. Andrews Agreement and in particular, Sinn Fein’s acceptance of the PSNI as Northern Ireland’s official police.  He appeared to be slightly more hard-line than Sinn Fein officially was.

The Fianna Fail Party and Bertie Ahern, in particular, gave unconditional support to St. Andrews.

So already, Fianna Fail have accepted a “hard liner” into their ranks and one who is averse to ‘control freakery’.  That is most interesting.  In a sense, it is Sinn Fein’s ability to keep discipline with its membership that has been one of the hallmarks of its success.  One wonders how Mr. McHugh will react when Fianna Fail start to put their own restrictions on his political conduct. 

McHugh also needs to ‘get real’ in relation to the ’spooks.’  Were it not for those excellent brave people doing field intelligence work, we would by now have a tradgedy on our hands beginning with a dead police officer in Garrison.

It is going to be fascinating to see how Sinn Fein reacts.  Will this make it more or less likely that Martin McGuiness will break the Executive if the DUP do not deliver a date for P & J by Christmas?  Let the drama begin.

It is very hard, at this stage, to predict the impact of Fianna Fail onto the Northern Ireland Political scene.  Could their success depend upon how many big names defect from Sinn Fein and the SDLP?   Could this mark the death of the SDLP?  Could their entry into politics split the Nationalist vote and kill Martin McGuinnness’s dream of becoming first minister?

f they attract no more than a token number of big names, Fianna Fail might begin with similar difficulties to the ones facing the Conservatives in the late 1980s.  Fermanagh could become to Northern Ireland Fianna Fail what North Down eventually became to Northern Ireland Conservatives but their footholds might remain only that unless Fianna Fail’s central party invests substantial resources into their campaigning, as the Conservatives have recently began to do. 

They have one possible problem which the Conservatives do not have.  They are operating politics across a state boundary.  That causes difficulties as policy in one state may not be appropriate for the other.  On the other hand, Fianna Fail, as a populist party with no particular ideology may be the best Irish party suited to cross-border “horses for courses” politics.  On that particular aspect, they have a serious edge over Sinn Fein who are wedded rigidly to the left of the political spectrum.   

In time, Fianna Fail could become serious political opponents of our party but that is for the future. 

Those are my observations.  The truth is, I have absolutely no idea how what the future holds for Fianna Fail in Northern Ireland.  Today, meanwhile,  is a day for goodwill.   The Conservative Party will never allow this event to get in the way of the friendships which Britain has developed with the Republic of Ireland as a neighbouring state. 

We welcome the arrival of Fianna Fail into Northern Ireland politics.  We hope that their presence in the Northern Ireland political arena will create new opportunities to do political business with them.   We hope that there will be opportunities for both of our respective parties to implement great joint political initiatives which will enhance the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

Gregory Campbell ha espresso la sua opinione in merito ad una devolution che non potrà avvenire prima di anni

Gregory Campbell, leader del DUP, ha affermato che ancora per anni il trasferimento dei poteri di polizia e giustizia, non vedrà la luce. Non vi è infatti alcuna prospettiva su una data  a breve termine (prima delle festività natalizie), entro la quale essa possa avvenire.
Sarebbe nel torto anche Martin McGuinness sostenendo che la devolution possa avvenire nei primi mesi del 2010.
Questo sarà un argomento di discussione tra il Primo Ministro inglese Gordon Brown e la sua controparte irlandese Brian Cowen.
Campbell ha dichiarato: “Ci vorranno anni, non solo per i miei colleghi ed il sottoscritto, ma per molti della comunità unionista , per vedere il Sinn Fein continuare a lavorare all’interno della Northern Ireland Assembly e non nell’utlizzarla come sorta di ariete, come sta facendo ora”.
E’ strategia del maggior partito repubblicano minacciare il deragliamento dell’intero processo politico attualmente in corso, in mancanza dell’attuazione della devolution.
Declan Dearney criticando il DUP sostiene che “Assolutamente nulla suggerisce che questa posizione possa cambiare. La continua intransigenza è un grave errore politico. Si tratta di un strategia politica deragliante e le conseguenze politiche saranno inevitabili”.
Medesima l’opinione espressa dal vice Primo Ministro nordirlandese Martin McGuinness al Taoiseach Brian Cowen.

Traduci l’articolo…

Justice devolution ‘years away’ (BBC News Northern Ireland)
Policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland may not be devolved for years, the DUP’s Gregory Campbell has said.
The East Londonderry MP said there was no prospect of a date for devolution being given before Christmas.
At the weekend, Sinn Fein’s Martin McGuinness said a date must be set by then and the powers transferred early in 2010.
The issue is set to be discussed when Prime Minister Gordon Brown meets his Irish counterpart Brian Cowen later.
The DUP and Sinn Fein have been arguing for months about policing and justice, often referred to as the “last piece of the devolution jigsaw”.
Speaking on Monday morning, Mr Campbell said: “It will take years, for not only my colleagues and myself, but for many in the unionist community to see Sinn Fein continuing to work the Northern Ireland Assembly and not using it as some sort of battering ram, because that’s where we are now.
“It appears we’re moving into the position where their speeches – and Martin McGuinness again and Brian Cowen before him were indicating if policing and justice doesn’t happen and there’s no date by Christmas then we’re in for this train wreck.
“Well if that’s the case let them spell it out.”
Train-wreck strategy
Speaking at a republican event at the weekend Sinn Fein national chairperson Declan Kearney said the DUP had to “make its mind up now”.
“In recent weeks all the evidence indicates the DUP have no intention to support the transfer of policing and justice powers,” he said.
“Absolutely nothing suggests this position will change. Their continued intransigence is a serious political mistake. It is a train-wreck political strategy and political consequences will be inevitable.”
Mr McGuinness, who is NI’s deputy first minister, met Taoiseach Cowen over the weekend and said that “ongoing attacks” by DUP First Minister Peter Robinson on the decision-making processes were of concern.
“I see these attacks as a very clear example of the failure on the part of the DUP to embrace the equality, partnership and power-sharing arrangements which lie at the heart of these agreements,” he said.
‘Long-term survival’
Mr Robinson has said that he wants community designation at the assembly replaced by a 65% weighted majority system to “ensure widespread support” but which would stop any single party having “a veto on progress”.
“It would encourage co-operation and compromise and end the potential of blackmail by stalemate,” he told a DUP meeting in Foyle last week.
He said that much had been achieved by the Executive, but the “areas of disagreement” undermined the administration’s credibility.
“The continual inability to agree on a range of issues drains credibility from the operation of devolution and if it continues over a long period of time will undoubtedly threaten its long-term survival,” he said.
“I do not believe that this is in anyone’s best interests.”

Imagine a passenger aeroplane which is in deep trouble.  Three out of its four engines have ceased to function.  The fourth is badly damaged and could also malfunction soon.  The plane was originally on its way to a different airport but had to be diverted because of a bad winter storm but it might never reach its diverted destination.  Weather conditions are still very bad and the storm is threatening again.  At the moment, visibility is poor.  The pilot can not even see the ground.  Things are rather desperate.  If they can not land soon, they risk losing that last engine followed by disaster and tragedy.

Now let’s call that Aeroplane “the DUP”.  Had it flown to its original flight path, it would have topped the poll in the Euro Election and landed safely at its originally planned destination airport.  As it was, a storm broke out which we call “the TUV.”  As well as preventing the plane from landing, the storm caused the damage to  the plane’s four engines after it was diverted.   The pilot wishes desparately to land.  There is only one airfield nearby.  The airfield is called “police and justice.”  If they can land there, get time to refuel and fix the plane, they could all survive.  But there is just one other problem.  The airport has been taken over by a group of gangsters called Sinn Fein.  Sinn Fein want the DUP to land at their airport but they will only allow them supplies and time to fix their plane if they agree to certain conditions. 

All right, I am not the most talented story-teller when it comes to inventing make-believe and drama description.  However, this analogy does highlight a number of real political incidents that are happening to the DUP.  The certainties in this drama are that the DUP has been damaged but not yet finished.  It still holds out a slim hope of a recovery and being able to weather the TUV storm.  Much of that hope is now dependent on getting Policing and Justice devolved in a way which satisfies the majority of hard-line unionists.

A month ago, Liam Clarke wrote an article in the Sunday Times entitled “First Minister has played his cards right.  If you read it, you would think “hey presto, Peter’s done a blinder and can look forward to the spoils.”  However, within a week of that article, it was obvious that it was flawed as well as written prematurely.  Consider particularly these comments:

“The DUP is now in a position to push for a series of side deals under the guise of measures to build confidence among unionists. These include the abolition of the Parades Commission, the retention of the PSNI full-time reserve, a more relaxed regime on the issuing of personal protection weapons to retired members of the security forces, and a gratuity package for members of the RUC’s former part-time reserve.”

Well, we now know that the full-time reserve will not remain and that Jeffrey Donaldson is still snarling.  We also know that Parades Commission is still a huge sticking point.  In fact, it is looking increasingly as though the lack of agreement on parades could be the sole reason that this crisis is not resolved.    

Why mention Liam Clarke’s article at all then?  Clarke should have waited until there was a formal announcement that the negotiations had concluded.  However, in many respects, Clarke’s article was right.  Peter Robinson had indeed played a ‘blinder’ on almost all aspects of the negotiations up to that point.  Even now, if he can put together a package which satisfies most of the unionists (including most hard-line unionists) he could well survive to see off the threat from the TUV. 

Unfortunately for Peter Robinson, the old proverb “a miss is as good as a mile” applies appropriately to his good work on Police and Justice.  If he fails on this, his failure will be absolute.  

His prospects of success do not look good.  The issue of parades seems to be one which the parties will not be able to resolve between them.  In the larger scheme of things, the DUP’s demands are unreasonable at the present time.  A lot of good and difficult work has been carried out by the Parades Commission.  Many streets and communities are safer and many parades are now peaceful because of its existence.  In an earlier post on this subject, I argued that Policing and Justice could be devolved without parades and that the latter could be devolved at a later time to give the best chance for public confidence in the new ministry to build.  Perhaps that is a concession that Sinn Fein could agree to.

That is not how Peter Robinson sees it, and with good reason.  Much of the support that was lost to the TUV in the European elections would be of Unionist voters who regard the Parades Commission with contempt.  Therefore its abolition would certainly be a feather in Robinson’s cap in his competition with Jim Allister.

Abolition of the parades commission is also too much of a concession for Sinn Fein to make.  Speaking to the BBC a few days ago, Martin McGuinness repeated Sinn Fein’s position

“it was “absolutely preposterous” to make a demand on behalf of the Orange Order for the abolition of the Parades Commission”

From its own political perspective, Sinn Fein can not afford to concede to the DUP on parades.  It has even rejected, out of hand, the recommendations contained in the interim report on the strategic review of parading headed by Lord Ashdown.   Taking these two positions together, it seems unlikely that we will see the devolution of Police and Justice during this Assembly – or is it?

Martin McGuinness is now blackmailing the travellers on that DUP aeroplane.  He has given the DUP until Christmas to set an actual time for the devolution of Police and Justice.  It is the equivalent of saying “If you don’t land on our terms within this time limit, you will not be able to repair your plane and you will have no supplies.”  It is still foggy and now a snow storm and blizzards are affecting the runway.  So what does Robinson do?

He really has no choice but to land that plane.   To him, it may be the lesser of two evils.  If he does not, Martin McGuinness will probably carry out his threat to bring down the Executive and force fresh elections.  Robinson could be ousted as first minister within weeks.  It would leave the DUP in complete disarray.

Is Sinn Fein bluffing?  I dont think it is this time.  With the SDLP not knowing who its new leader will be until February, the timing of the ultimatum is perfect.

As we cast our minds back to just over a year ago, we remember Sinn Feins’s boycott of the Executive over the issue.  They were forced to give up their boycott without apparently having extracted any clear commitment from the DUP on the timing of P & J devolution.   They gave up their boycott after calculating that they would suffer electoral damage if they did not get down to the business of government.  So what has changed to embolden Martin McGuinness? 

The answer appears to be the change of the political landscape brought about by the TUV.   Sinn Fein now see a vulnerablility in the DUP which was lacking a year ago.  If the Executive is brought down, that brings fresh elections followed by Sinn Fein becoming the largest party at Stormont with McGuinness as First Minister.  If the Unionist Parties refuse to go into government with a Sinn Fein First minister, who gets the flack?  It would be the Unionists for being intransigent.  Sinn Fein then comes out “whiter than white” within the nationalist community having also gained an electoral mandate to push through P & J.

Peter Robinson is in a perilous position.  Perhaps his best option is to fudge the parades issue by asking Sinn Fein to commit to “considering” the final Ashdown report when it is made.  In practice, it would be no concession at all but it might save Robinson from complete humiliation.  Following that, he would then close his eyes and hope that his party can hold onto most of its existing parliamentary seats at the forthcoming General Election.  That might just give him enough time to get that plane repaired.  However, he still has to negotiate that storm and land it without crashing it!

Peter Robinson must think all unionists are educationally disadvantaged. Otherwise he would have thought through his proposal to allow decisions of the Executive, such as on education, to be taken by any three parties. S(election) at 14 has been once again floated by the educationalists including the DENI’s favourite, Professor Tony Gallagher and all the main churches. Since the Catholic Church have found themselves, once again, unable to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the sexual abuse of young people by their clerics it must have crossed the minds of those, aware enough to appreciate that they have a virtual monopoly on the education of Catholic children, that there may be a link.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/catholic-church-supporting-15-priests-accused-of-child-sexual-abuse-14579407.html

 If this is Peter Robinson and the DUP’s idea of getting out of jail free on the academic selection at 11 problem they have little concept of the pending backlash. Be careful what you wish for is the best advice PACE can give their educationally and strategy disadvantaged politicians.

Barry Magee has recently written a very detailed analysis of the current statement in Northern Irish politics as a result of the entrenched views of SF and the DUP. He believes that FF coming North will be a positive thing for Irish Republicanism and our quest for unity. As he didnt look into the electoral impact such a move would have, I have attempted to do so in the following article. Before looking at what impact FF would have on the Northern electoral landscape, it is important to reflect on what has happened electorally since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. I have deliberately chosen to ignore the European and Local Elections as local issues and personal popularity can cloud the actual party support levels.

The SDLP was at the zenith of its popularity in 1997 / 1998. At the Westminster Election of 1997, it won 190,844 votes which gave them a 24.1% share of the vote in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin at the time won 126,961 votes and thus 16.1% of the vote. The total SDLP / SF vote was 317,765 or 40.2%.The next election in 1998 which following the signing of the Good Friday election saw the SDLP winning 177,963 votes and 21.97% of the vote. Sinn Féin proceeded to win 142,858 and 17.63%. The Total SDLP / SF vote was 320,821 or 39.6%. The first thing to notice at this time is the discrepancy between Westminster Elections and Assembly Elections where the SDLP did even better in Westminster Elections than Assembly Elections than Sinn Féin. I suspect that this is due to some Nationalist voters decided to vote SDLP because they would take their seats in Westminster.

As we passed the Millenium, Sinn Féin passed the SDLP out in terms of support. In the 2001 Westminster Election, Sinn Féin won 175,933 (21.7%) with the SDLP achieving 169,865 (25%). Worse was to come for the SDLP in the 2003 Assembly Elections where they saw a massive drop in their share of the vote. By 2003, a massive 60,416 former SDLP voters either didnt go to vote or voted for another party. It’s important to note that Sinn Féin’s vote only increased by 19,900. While obviously voter turnout played an important role in this discrepancy, it is clear that many SDLP stayed at home. The SDLP’s vote further eroded at the 2005 Westminster Election where they could only muster 125,626 votes (down 65,218 since 1997 or 44,239 since 2001).

At the last Assembly Elections in 2005, the SDLP received their lowest vote in 20 years. 105,162 turned up to the polls and cast a first preference vote for the SDLP. This gave them a 15.2% share of the vote in comparison to Sinn Féin’s 180,573 or 26.2%.

Overall, the SDLP vote has declined by roughly 6.85% or in terms of voters, 69,008. At the same time, the Sinn Féin vote has increased by 8.55% or 42,799 (averaging both Westminster and Assembly changes). Over the course of the past 3 Assembly Elections, the SDLP / Sinn Féin vote, while decreasing in terms of voters by 37,084 has increased in percentage terms by 1.8%. Like wise, the SDLP / Sinn Féin vote has increased by 1.93% in Westminster Elections. (* Increase in voters by 17,912). These anomalies are due to the splitting of the total Republican / Nationalist votes through the emergence of smaller parties / dissidents / local groups at Assembly Elections but who do not contest Westminster Elections. What is clear is that the SDLP are losing voters massively.

What is also clear is that Sinn Féin are not winning all of them to their cause. A significant proportion are choosing to stay at home and not vote altogether. What does this show us in Fianna Fáil? It shows us that there is a sizable proportion of former SDLP voters who cannot voter Sinn Féin. While not an election winning number of voters for Fianna Fáil, it is a base of supporters we should aim to garner to our cause.

There are also soft Sinn Féin voters i.e. those who stopped voting SDLP and switched their allegiance to Sinn Féin following that party’s democratisation programme. This is another group of voters, Fianna Fáil must look at winning to the cause. Add to these two groups of voters, we should also aim to win over those still voting SDLP today and also moderates in Sinn Féin, the UUP, the Green Party and the Alliance Party. How should the party position itself to maximise its electoral support?

Fianna Fáil is, and always will be a Republican Party. This should be and must continue to the be the party’s primary ideology. It will allow us to become the big tent party that we need to be to win in the North and to win again in the South. Charles Haughey once said at a Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis in 1974, “We (Fianna Fáil) are neither masters of the left nor servants of the right, but pragmatists of the centre”. In 2009, this is as important as it was in 1974. We should do what we have always done – Look after those who need looking after and allow those who want to succeed to succeed. This means being pro enterprise and pro social justice. There is no paradox in adopting these two philosophies. Our Republicanism allows us to do this and I believe, demands that we do this.

In the North, we cannot allow Fianna Fáil to become another party caught up in the Tribal headcount. Yes, our initial support base will be Catholic / Republican but we can reach out and win new voters. People who previously voted UUP or Alliance. Those who are looking for a society that rewards those that work hard and supports those that fall on tough times. We have shown in the South that we are not afraid of dealing with Climate Change or environmental issues. We can rightly appeal to environmentalists for their support.

Our Time Is Now. We can achieve great success in the North. The support we need is there if we look for it with sincerity. We can make Unity happen far quicker than Sinn Féin ever can. Our former leaders have shown that they have the capacity to win the trust and friendship of the unionist community.

Our Time is Now. We must take the next step towards achieving the aim of every Irish Republican. Our Time in Now.

The Official Launch of the Fermanagh Fianna Fáil Forum will take place this Sunday in the Westville Hotel, Enniskillen at 2:30pm. Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Eamon O Cuiv TD and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern TD will be in attendance. Both Ministers Ahern and O Cuiv sit on the Fianna Fáil Northern Strategy committee.

This launch follows on from the highly successful launches recently of the South Down Fianna Fáil Forum and South Armagh Fianna Fáil Forum. A large crowd is expected.

Fermanagh could prove to be a highly lucrative area for Fianna Fáil. The SDLP vote has dropped considerably over the past years with Tommy Gallagher flying the flag. Tommy used to top the poll with over 8000 votes as well as a running mate getting roughly 2000 votes. He now receives about 4500 votes with his running mate on about 2000. Sinn Féin are also in trouble in Fermanagh & South Tyrone. One of their MLA’s elected in 2007 went Independent in late 2007. Gerry McHugh left Sinn Féin saying that it lacked democracy and was controlling of its members. The way is clear, in my opinion, for Fianna Fáil to win back many of the disillusioned moderate Republicans and give the SF – DUP axis a run for their money.

If you believe that Fianna Fáil should go North and compete electorally, join North2011 on Facebook, contact your local Fianna Fáil TD / Senator / Councillor or contact me at donnachamaguire@gmail.com

On November 28:

1520 Three ships under the command of Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan reached the Pacific Ocean, becoming the first Europeans to sail from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific.

1582 William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway paid a £40 bond for their marriage licence.

1628  John Bunyan, English cleric and author. was born.

1632 Jean-Baptiste Lully, French composer, was born.

1660 12 men, including Christopher Wren, Robert Boyle, John Wilkins, and Sir Robert Moray at Gresham College decided to found what became the Royal Society.

 Mace of the Royal Society, granted by King Charles II.

1757 – William Blake, British poet, was born.

1814  The Times in London was for the first time printed by automatic, steam powered   presses built by the German inventors Friedrich Koenig and Andreas Friedrich Bauer, signaling the beginning of the availability of newspapers to a mass audience.

1820 Friedrich Engels, German philosopher, was born.

1821 Panama separated from Spain and joined Gran Colombia.

1829  Anton Rubinstein, Russian composer, was born.

1843 The Kingdom of Hawaii was officially recognized by the United Kingdom and France as an independent nation.

1893 Women voted in a general election New Zealand for the first time.

1904  Nancy Mitford, British essayist, was born.

1905  Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith founded Sinn Féin as a political party with the main aim of establishing a dual monarchy in Ireland.

1912  Albania declared its independence from the Ottoman Empire.

1919  Lady Astor was elected as a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. She was the first woman to sit in the House of Commons.  (Countess Markiewicz, the first to be elected, refused to sit).

1933  Hope Lange, American actress, was born.

1948  Beeb Birtles, Dutch-Australian musician/singer-songwriter; co-founding member of Little River Band, was born.

1960  Mauritania became independent of France.

1961 Martin Clunes, British actor, was born.

1962  Matt Cameron, American drummer (Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, was born.

1964 NASA launched the Mariner 4 probe toward Mars.

1975 East Timor declared its independence from Portugal.

1977 Greg Somerville, New Zealand rugby union footballer, was born.

1979  Air New Zealand Flight TE901, a DC-10 operated sightseeing flight over Antarctica, crashed into Mount Erebus, killing all 257 people on board.

1987 South African Airways flight 295 crashes into the Indian Ocean, killing all 159 people on-board.

1991  South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia.

2008 An Air NZ Airbus A320 crashed off the coast of France.

Sourced from NZ History Online & Wikipedia.

Il gruppo paramilitare repubblicano di Ardoyne è sospettato di essere stato alla regia dell’autobomba semi-esplosa lo scorso sabato

L’Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH) è sospettato di essere l’autore dell’attentato ai danni del Policing Board, attuato tramite un’autobomba imbottita di 400 libre di esplosivo.
L’auto utilizzata per trasportare la bomba a Clarendon Dock, sarebbe stata avvisata nell’area, qualche ora precedente l’attentato.
La PSNI è inoltre convinta del coinvolgimento di 2 Provos, che hanno preso le distanze dal Sinn Fein dal momento in cui ha dato appoggio alla polizia.
Gerry Kelly, esponente del maggior partito repubblicano, ha affermato che si sia trattata di pura fortuna se il dispositivo non è totalmente esploso. “E’ ironico che scelgano di attaccare il Policing Board, che è il meccanismo stesso di responsabilità, negoziato e istituito per mantenere il ruolo della polizia, il che significa che in realtà è un attacco contro la comunità”.

Traduci l’articolo…

Oglaigh na hEireann ‘Planted Bomb’ (4 NI)
Ardoyne-based republicans are being balmed for the failed weekend bomb attack on the NI Policing Board.
It has emerged that the republican dissident group Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH) was suspected of the 400lb car bomb attack.
It is belived the car used to ferry the bomb to Clarendon Dock had been spotted in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast hours before the attack.
Police believe that two former Provisional IRA members, who split from the organisation because of Sinn Féin’s support for policing, were behind the attack.
North Belfast DUP MP Nigel Dodds described the bombers as “reckless” and “having nothing to offer but murder and mayhem”.
His comments came as the SDLP leader Mark Durkan described the attack as an attempt to “strike at the democratic structures of the north” and Policing Board member and Ulster Unionist MLA Basil McCrea described the attacks as “calculated and callous”.
Underlining the dissidents’ exclusion from mainstream republicanism, Sinn Féin MLA Gerry Kelly said that it was fortunate that the device had only partially exploded.
“It’s ironic that they should choose to attack the Policing Board, which is the very accountability mechanism which was negotiated and set up to keep the police to account – which means that it really is an attack on the community.”

Martin McGuinness è stato eletto a miglior politico dell’anno nella seconda edizione  del Slugger O’Toole Political Awards

Nella cerimonia dello Slugger O’Toole Political Awards organizzata presso il Black Box di Belfast, il sito che da il poprio nome al premio (noto ai più in materia di Irlanda del Nord), ha incoronato il vice primo ministro nordirlandese Martin McGuinness, come personaggio politico dell’anno.
Slugger O’Toole, fondato nel 2002, è diventato in pochi anni un punto di riferimento per chi è alla ricerca di notizie, opinioni e dibattiti riguardanti l’Irlanda del Nord. Il sito può vantare da 30.000 a 40.000 utenti mensili, come assicura Mick Fealty, fondatore e redattore di Slugger O’Toole.
Premi anche per Cara McShane (Sinn Fein) eletta a Consigliere dell’Anno, per Dwun Purvis (PUP) eletto a Parlamentare dell’Anno, e anche per Simon Hamilton del DUP.
I vincitori sono stati votati da una giuria composta da ex politici, accademici, analisti politici e giornalisti britannici e irlandesi.
Gli eletti hanno ricevuto in premio una caricatura di loro stessi, opera del vignettista Martin Rowson, del Guardian.

Traduci l’articolo…

McGuinness is Slugger politician of the year (U TV)
Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has been named Politician of the Year at the second annual Slugger O’Toole Political Awards in Belfast.
The ceremony organised by the Slugger O’Toole website took place at the Black Box in the city’s Cathedral Quarter on Tuesday night.
The blog is a news and research portal and a forum where people share their views and dialogue on controversial issues. Its awards aim at rewarding good local governance at all levels.
“It was a way of looking at the political game and trying to give some due respect to people who work very hard but often take the sharp end of the stick from the public,” blog founder and editor Mick Fealty explained.
Slugger O’Toole was founded in 2002 and has already become something of an institution.

“It started as a research tool and within a year we had around 1,000 users. Now there are about 30,000 to 40,000 users a month,” Fealty said.
DUP MLA Simon Hamilton won the award for Up-and-Coming Politician of the year.
Sinn Fein’s Cara McShane was named Councillor of the Year, while PUP leader Dawn Purvis won MLA of the Year.
“Some people think politics is very boring and often it is very boring and our assembly can be, but it’s very important in a democratic society to share views”, said comedian Tim Garry who compered the event.
Winners were voted for by a panel of judges including senior politicians, academics, political analysts and journalists from Britain and Ireland.
They received a caricature of themselves drawn by Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson.

Tá físeán úr feachtais seolta ag Guth na Gaeltachta chun aird an phobail a dhíriú ar an bpriacal ina bhfuil an Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht de bharr moltaí Mhic Charthaigh.   Is féidir amharc air anseo thuas.

Más maith is mithid.   Bhí an chruinniú seo ag tús na míosa seo agus ghlac sé trí sheachtain an fhíseán a fhoilsiú.  Anuas ar sin, tá an físeán aonteangach, i nGaeilge amháin, agus ní mor dúinn a thuiscint má tá an fheachtas seo le baint go gcaithfimíd a léiriú do phobal mhór na tíre seo, a thacaíonn leis an Ghaeltacht agus leis an Ghaeilge fiú is nach bhfuil siad líofa sa teanga, go mbeadh giorruithe ar leithéidí Scéim na Mná Tí ina íonsaí orthu.

Tá an baol ann mura n-aithnímíd go bhfuil gá le leaganacha Bhéarla de píosaí bolscaireachta mar seo, nach mbeidh an lucht féachana agus an lucht tacaíochta ann dúinn atáimid ag lorg.

Tá an t-am idir seo agus 9 Nollaig, lá an Bhuiséid, ag giorrú.   Ba cheart dúinn an am seo a úsáid chun féachaint chuige go bhfuil pobal na tíre ar fad ar an eolas faoi céard atá i gceist leis an bhfeachtas chun an Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht a thabhairt slán ón eigeandáil seo.

Ba cheart dúinn a aithint go bhfuilimid beo trath na h-eigeandála agus go gcaithfidh pobal na Gaeilge is na Gaeltachta a léiriú go bhfuilimíd páirteach sa mhór phobal.  Ba cheart a thabhairt le fios go n-aithnímid go mbeidh ciorruithe de dhíth ach a thabhairt le fios cad iad na ciorruithe is fearr ar féidir a dhéanamh agus cad iad na rudaí nár cheart giorrú.

Tá cúig éileamh ag Guth na Gaeltachta – agus is iad seo iad.

1. Roinn na Gaeltachta faoi cheannasaíocht an Aire a choinneáil

2. Cúraimí fiontraíochta Údarás na Gaeltachta a choinneáil

3. Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaeilge a chosaint

4. Scéimeanna forbartha teanga, cultúrtha agus ealaíne a choinneáil agus a leasú más gá

5. Ciste caiteachais a bheith ar fáil d’oibreacha caipitil, infreastruchtúir agus pobail i gceantair iargúlta mar an Ghaeltacht

Maidir leis an gcéad éileamh, is léir ó na fograí a foilsíodh le déanaí ag lorg Ard Runaí agus cúigear aistritheoir nach bhfuil aon bhaol ann don Roinn Ghnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta ó thua Mhic Charthaigh.

Is cinnte go mba amaideach an mhaise é deireadh a chur le feidhm fiontraíochta Udar
ás na Gaeltachta agus é d’aistriú chuig Fiontraíocht Éireann.   Murach an Udarás, ní bheadh teora leis an dífhostaíocht sa Ghaeltacht.

Tacaím go mór le scéim na mná tí – tá sé tabhachtach go dtabharfaí tacaíocht do thionscal na gColáistí Samhraidh ar an mbonn go bhfuil an tionscal sin ag tabhairt isteach airgead don Ghaeltacht.  Tionscal beo beathach atá ann, a thugann toradh íontach ar infhéistíocht an stait.

Ach luath nó mall, titfidh an tua ar an nGaeilge is ar an nGaeltacht in áit éigean.  An bhfuil sé ionainn teacht le cheile agus a rá anois cén áit nár cheart do titim –  agus ní leor bheith ag maíomh nach féidir leis titim in áit ar bith – agus cén áit nach ndéanfadh sé an oiread sin dochar do bhaill riachtanacha chorp  an phobail teanga.

Sin an fath go dtacaím le feachtas Guth na Gaeltachta nó aithníonn an feachtas go mbeidh giorruithe ann agus go bhfuilimid sa Ghaeltacht agus i bpobal na Gaeilge sásta bheith páirteach leis an bpobal mhór.

Bionn dreamanna ar nós Sinn Féin ag iarraidh a thabhairt le fios nach gá aon giorruithe bheith ann agus iad ag maíomh go bhfuil siad ar thaobh an chosmhuintir.  I bhfirinne níl siad ach ag cronán ar a son féin.   Os rud é gur feachtas é Guth na Gaeltachta a fhograíonn:

Is feachtas neamhpholaitiúil, traspháirtí é Guth na Gaeltachta
atá dírithe ar chás na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta .

Sin cúis eile le tacú leis….  Nior cheart do phairtí ar bith, Sinn Féin nó eile, feachtais is grúpaí Ghaeilge nó Ghaeltachta a shealbhú.

Is cinnte go bhfuil éagóir á dhéanamh ar phobal na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta – agus tá an éagóir sin á dhéanamh le blianta fada nó ba bheag méadú a fuair an Ghaeilge le linn blianta rachmasacha an Tiogair Cheiltigh – ach sin sean scéal agus meirg air.

Caithfimid port nua a sheinm – agus caithfimid an phobal a thabhairt linn.  Agus dá fheabhas é an fhíseán thuas, ní leor é.

Nil sé maith a dhothain níos mó go mbeadh físeán You Tube ann – caithfidh feachtas uile ghabhalach na meán nua bheith ann.  Mura bhfuil TG4 sásta tuairisciú a dhéanamh ar an bhfeachtas seo, tá orainn féachaint taobh amuigh de TG4.

Up to four MPs and peers are to face fraud charges over the expenses scandal by early in the New Year, it emerged today.

In a move which shook through the political establishment, detectives have referred case files on four parliamentarians to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Police believe there is sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges in each of the cases, sources said.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is expected to rubber stamp charges against the politicians by February.

Such a development would result in the highly embarrassing spectacle of MPs and peers appearing in court before next May’s expected General Election.

The politicians could face charges of fraud or false accounting, with maximum penalties of ten or seven years. There was no official word today on which cases had been sent to the CPS.

However it is known that police believe there is strong evidence against Labour MPs Elliot Morley and David Chaytor, and Labour peer Baroness Uddin, and that such cases were likely to be in the first batch of files to be considered by prosecution lawyers.

Other politicians believed to be under police investigation include Labour MP Jim Devine, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Clarke of Hampstead.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: ‘The Metropolitan Police Service has today delivered four main files of evidence relating to parliamentary expenses to the Crown Prosecution Service.

‘The files relate to four people, from both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and will now be subject to CPS consideration on whether there should be any charges.

‘A small number of cases remain under investigation.’

Read on

Having run previously in 1987 and 1989 in Dublin South Central, boundary changes led to Micheal O’Muireagain running in Dublin South East where he won 851 votes.
The message from Gerry Adams objects to the removal Articles Two and Three of the constitution which were later mainstays of the Good Friday Agreement.

UI NOV 69 GO

This document charts the developing crisis in the North, and in particular points to the issue of Fianna Fáil intervention both in terms of what it characterises as a ‘takeover of Civil Rights’ and mention is given to the ‘Voice of the North’, a most intriguing publication. It is most exercised by what it refers to in the first paragraph.

Has the Civil Rights Movement outlived its usefulness? A very dangerous attitude of complacency among some sections of the Civil Rights supporters in the North would seem to suggest that all the aims of the Movement have been attained and that some form of political organisation should take its place. Such a suicidal mood is sheer lunacy at a time when both Stormont and Westminster are backsliding on recommendations made by Commissions established by them.

And there is a sense that this ‘political organisation’ would be the outcome of:

Messrs Blaney, Haughey and Boland.. seeking to buy their way into control of Civil Rights policy in teh North so as to ensure there will be no opposition from Civil Rights while FF concocts the Federal deal with Britain which is now being planned.

Leathanach Do is devoted to this and it makes for instructive reading.

There’s a lot more in here, including an outline of ‘the New Gerrymander’ of the North, ‘Home Rule is Rome Rule’. There’s a nod to traditional Republicanism and considerable coverage of Economic Resistance and the North. There are some insights into the sentiment in favour of Republicanism, including a piece on how Kerry Council recognises the IRA. One notable aspect of it is that there is almost no mention at all of non-Irish political related matters.

One other point. The level of presentation is remarkable, look at the use of photography and montage inside. It really is the equal of any of the other publications during this period.

I quite like Margaret Ritchie. She is harmless and sincere, two qualities that a Politician should have. She is however……useless. To date she is the only DECLARED candidate for the SDLP leadership, following the decision of Mark Durkan to call it a day next year. Again I like Mark but he has always been handicapped by his tendency to go for a “soundbite” rather than an “idea”. Actually I am quite like that also. Mark also has the tendency to bore the arse off people by talking about his beloved Manchester United. …a passion he shares with Martin McGuinness and er……..ME!!!!

I digress. Ritchie is good councillor material for DOWN Council. Possibly even a good backbencher at Stormont. maybe good as Eddie McGradys “office manager”……..but Leader of the SDLP…….no thats a couple of steps too far.

In fairness she is making a reasonable job as the SDLPs only Minister in the Stormont administration as Minister for Social Development. But this begs the question how on Earth did she get that job when better qualified people (Alban Magennis and Alex Attwood) were available.

Well in part, the SDLP has never quite managed to bring on its “Younger Turks”, the second XI below John Hume and Seamus Mallon. Hume was notoriously difficult to work with…often taking initiatives that the Party had to follow. For example his talks with Gerry Adams brought Sinn Féin in from the cold…and was a pre-requisite to the Peace Process and Agreement. But of course this cost the SDLP votes.

Of course most Northern Catholics accept that the SDLP and Sinn Féin are different sides of the same Republican coin. Hume was avowedly Republican. After all no SDLP politician has ever accepted a peerage (Fitt had left the Party when he did so) and none would even accept a knighthood or other so called honour or trinket. It will be noted that no SDLP politician has ever trooped into the House of Lords to hear Elizabeth Windsor’s speech.

So the SDLP is in a dilemna especially in Belfast. At Stormont level it holds four Belfast seats……one (Attwood) in West Belfast (where SF hold the other five seats), one in Noth Belfast (Maginness) where SF have two seats. In South Belfast the SDLP outpolls SF and has two seats  (MacDonnell & Hanna) to SFs one. With a minority vote McDonnell is actually MP for South Belfast at Westminster.

I declare an interest here. Attwood is a person I know well and like. But he can never deliver West Belfast. He is the senior SDLP person on the Policing Board……he is a solicitor and its his area of expertise. In fairness to him, he has sacrificed a lot of potential wealth to pursue a political career……in the interests of a largely ungrateful West Belfast nationalist and republican community. He is a hate figure for Sinn Féin extremists, largely because they once saw him as a serious threat. That tactic was unfair. Alex has more decency than most of his detractors.

Alban Magennis…frankly I used to know better but he seems semi-deatched from Politics now. A very successful barrister and of course the first Nationalist/Republican Lord Mayor of Belfast……he seems to have semi retired. His attempt to become a MEP was half hearted and he is now more likely to be seen as part of Belfasts cultural and artistic life than its political life.

I have only met the current SDLP Deputy Leader once or twice and never really took to Alistair MacDonnell MP who is a medical doctor in South Belfast. He is reputed to be agressive and abrasive. It is unlikely that he will “hold” South Belfast next year at Westminster. A better organised “unionist” campaign should see either a DUP or UUP man elected.

I know very little about Carmel Hanna, the second SDLP person in South Belfast. She was very ill for some years but has made a full recovery.

So why……..Margaret Ritchie. Except of course to “stop” MacDonnell.

The SDLP has a policy of NO DOUBLE JOBBING (having a mandate at Westminster and Stormont) and it has been agreed that the Party Leader should only have a Stormont mandate. Now this is interesting.

Durkan in resigning the SDLP leadership is therefore free to defend the Westminster seat of Foyle next year. He has a 6,000 majority and his profile should see him hold on to the seat. But the age old SDLP problem of not having strength in depth means that SF would do better against a “new” SDLP figure.

MacDonnell faces a dilemna in South Belfast. If he wants the Leadership of the SDLP he must give up the Westminster seat in 2010. Yet if he did that it would lessen the SDLPs already slim chances of holding South Belfast. Although I wonder if Attwood or Maginness be interested.

But for some peculiar reason the SDLP is facilitating Margaret Ritchie. For two decades she has been Eddie McGradys bag carrier in South Down with a nod and a wink suggesting that she was favoured to succeed him (the threat from Caitriona Ruane is minimal) as South Down is best area for South Down. And McGrady (who is 75 years old) had already announced he would not seek re-election to a safe West minster seat……but now to faclitate Ritchies leadership bid he has decided to stand after all.

It is intriguing.

Republicanism/Nationalism NEEDS a strong SDLP and I cannot see much future in a SDLP led by Margaret Ritchie.

Sinn Féin-Irish Republican Army  like to they think that it was their bombs and guns which eventually brought about the Good Friday Agreement, which is of course a major step towards Irish Unity. They like to dismiss the role played by the SDLP.

SDLP likes to think that it was their politics which brought about the same result. They dismiss the role played by the Irish Republican Army/Sinn Féin bombs and guns.

Of course the real truth is that they could not have done it without the other.

In recent times, the GAA has been compared with the Orange Order as being its Republican equivalent.  At the end of the continuum of sectarian bigotry where criminality festers, a GAA clubhouse is just as likely to be damaged as an Orange Hall. 

Just over a year ago, Margaret Ritchie MLA and Minister for Social Development set the cat amongst the pigeons when she attended a GAA conference in Belfast.  At the conference, she addressed sectarian attacks on Orange halls and GAA venues.  Her remarks on that subject were reported in the press and went down badly with members of the Orange Order.  In response, they handed her a letter of protest. 

On December 3, 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported as follows:

 “The minister condemned all such attacks, but reportedly said that the GAA and Orange Order could not be described as reflections of each other, insisting that the GAA had reached outside its nationalist heartland towards other communities.

She was quoted as saying: “While the loyal orders have some progressive people around who wish to move them forward to a better place, they remain unlike the GAA, sectional and sectarian and deeply divisive in our community.”

At first sight, Margaret Ritchie’s viewpoint is not an unreasonable one to arrive at when one compares the big differences between the two organisations. If one organisation is about religion and the other about sport, they cannot possibly be opposites.  Furthermore, there is no rule against a person from any particular religion from joining the GAA.  In the case of the Orange Order, Catholics are excluded from membership. 

I differ with Margaret Ritchie’s remarks in two respects.  It is wrong to say or imply that the GAA does not have any connection with sectarianism.  I also take issue with her comment that the GAA had reached outside its heartland towards other communities.  The reality is that their success in this area has not been more than minimal and whilst it is fair to say that some Protestants have been involved in Gaelic sports, the GAA certainly has certainly not integrated with the Unionist Community.  At this point, I would like to discuss another sport played widely in Ireland which does integrate Nationalists and Unionists – Rugby Union.

Lord Maginnis is a well known member of the UUP.  He is my former MP.  He identifies himself as British.  Many years ago, Maginnis also used to call himself Irish.  That he felt the need to suppress the Irish part of his identity was part of the tragedy of the troubles.  It was a reaction not simply to terrorism but to part of the Republican campaign which was to squeeze out and eliminate the British identity from Northern Ireland.  Yet Ken Maginnis is still an Irishman.  He is also a fan of rugby and devotedly follows the Irish team.

The Irish international rugby team represents the 32 Counties of Ireland internationally.  It is not the only sport which represents both parts of Ireland but certainly the only major one in Ireland.  Before the match, the National Anthem Amhrán na bhFiann is played.  Though it was tolerated by them, Irish Unionists did feel somewhat excluded by its inclusion.  In 1995, the IRFU commissioned Phil Coulter to write a politically neutral anthem for the Irish Rugby team.  The song, Ireland’s call has been proudly adopted by all Irishmen.  By that action, the IRFU effectively nailed any identity problem that it might have had with its National team.  Ireland’s Call has now been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket, Rugby League and A1GP international teams.

Unlike the IRFU, the GAA’s identity is tied to Nationalism.  This is not surprising given its history.  At the time of its inception, it formed part of a wider movement of cultural Irish Nationalism which now forms part of the history of the birth of the 26 county Irish State.

Throughout its existence, the GAA has nurtured its Nationalist identity through pre-match rites, its rules and its literature.  Rule 15 requires that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and that Amhrán na bhFiann is played at all matches.  It was also an isolationist institution until relatively recently.  At one time, a player of Gaelic sports was banned from playing other sports.  Some of its past rules such as the ban on British security forces playing GAA games were undoubtedly sectarian. 

Unofficially, the GAA has been linked to Republican terrorism.  In the past, there have been allegations that it funded the IRA.  It is also alleged that some clubs continue to glorify IRA men. 

I would certainly not wish to brand all GAA supporters as IRA supporters or sympathisers.  Many of the people I know who are also GAA members would have nothing to do with the IRA or its memory but it is a fact that every now and then, some members of the GAA organisation make overt gestures of sympathy for the IRA in the name of that organisation. 

Rule 7 of the GAA rules strictly forbids sectarianism. Unfortunately, the rule on its own is impotent.  The GAA has failed to prevent a culture of sectarianism from having developed in its own following, hence the appalling case of Darren Graham, a protestant who, in 2007, felt compelled to give up playing GAA sports.  He later returned to his club after receiving an apology from the Fermanagh GAA Board. 

For all of the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that the GAA is perceived by many as being a sectarian organisation and one which the Unionist Community is generally alienated from.  

The GAA carries with it the nurturing of the ancient Irish sports, such as hurling.  These sports are a part of Irish heritage.  Elsewhere on this website, I have argued that the Irish Language should not be allowed to be hijacked by Republicanism.  That argument extends to all other parts of Irish heritage.   No part of Irish heritage should be the preserve of a single community. 

So can the GAA move forward from here?

In a sense, only they can answer that.  It all depends upon what they want from their longer term future.  Do they wish to enhance the interest in their sport?  Do they wish to adopt a modern sporting ethos by removing politics from its aims and objects?  Do they wish to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and combat sectarianism?  I believe that they can achieve all of those things by doing one thing.  That is that they follow the Irish Rugby Football Union model and take measures to change their identity to a cross-community one.  For example, could they eliminate rule 15? 

I am not the first person to make this argument.  Ed Curran of the Belfast Telegraph has reached a similar view about the GAA.  Whether anybody inside the GAA will give these issues serious thought is another matter.  We can but hope that matters will change for the better.

Billy Leonard, consigliere di Coleraine, è stato eletto come rappresentante del Sinn Fein all’Assembly, per la circoscrizione di East Derry

Billy Leonard, ex orangista, ex riservista del Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) e ex membro del SDLP, è stato scelto come successore di Francie Brolly.
Il neo parlamentare ha ringraziato Brolly per l’onore concessogli, soprattutto nel poter rappresentare ‘la gente di East Derry’, una delle aree maggiormente depresse dell’isola per la quale si intende lavorare duramente nell’intento di assicurargli maggiore equità.
‘E’ la testimonianza della crescita del Sinn Fein in questa circoscrizione se siamo in grado di tenere questa convention stasera e vorrei ringraziare  tutti i membri del partito che sono arrivati ed hanno contribuito ad essa in tal modo cameratesco”, ha concluso Leonard.

Traduci l’articolo…

Ex RUC man becomes Sinn Fein MLA (BBC News Northern Ireland)
Coleraine councillor Billy Leonard has been selected by Sinn Fein colleagues to become an assembly member in East Londonderry.
He is succeeding the party’s Francie Brolly who is to retire.
Mr Leonard is a former Orangeman, RUC reservist and member of the SDLP.
Following his selection he said it was an honour to be chosen to replace Mr Brolly “and to represent the people of East Derry”.
“It is testament to the growth of Sinn Fein in this constituency that we are able to hold this convention tonight and I would thank all the party members who came along and contributed to this convention in such a comradely fashion.
“The north west region is one of the most deprived areas on this island and it is important that we have strong leadership to ensure East Derry is given its fair share,” he said.

Last night, I received an interesting comment from Horseman on the post entitled “Allister sets a nasty trap for Peter Robinson“

He has identified a possible scenario where the DUP does indeed lose 9 more MLAs than McGuinness and suggests that some UUP MLAs could defect to the DUP in order to keep them as the largest political party. 

The last  UUP MLAs to defect  to the DUP were Jeffrey Donaldson, Arlene Foster and Nora Beare just after the Assembly elections in November 2003.   Much water has passed under the bridge since then.  The UUP’s decline was arrested during the Euro Elections.  However, any kind of disaffection can drive a politician to defect.   For example, there is no telling whether some left-wing Ulster Unionists, who are already upset about the electoral pact with the Conservatives, might be tempted to go that way.  

I think it is unlikely that any UUP MLA would defect for that reason.   Most UUP supporters see the DUP as having peaked and begin a long-term decline into obscurity.   The loss of 9 or more MLAs will add credence to that – the more so if the UUP then becomes the largest party at Stormont.   It is also possible that DUP MLAs could defect to the UUP to make them the largest party in protest at Peter Robinson failing to nominate the deputy FM.  Perhaps we should not get too carried away.   Politicians do have a responsibility to re-assure the voters that they will play by the rules and not seek to de-stabilise the Assembly, the Good Friday agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement for sectarian motives.   

Meanwhile, this morning, supporters of Jim Allister’s TUV could be choking in the corn flakes as they read the report in the Belfast Telegraph entitled “Ian Paisley praises Sinn Fein over Northern Ireland power sharing”

Or will they not be delighted?  Maybe they will think ‘We were right to form our own movement. This man really has lost it’

Politicians rarely make remarks which they know will upset and annoy some of their own followers without making some sort of political calculation.  So is there anything significant about Paisley’s remarks?

For many years, we have listened to “smash Sinn Fein” rhetoric from Mr. Paisley and his disciples.  This rhetoric did not stop when the DUP finally went into power sharing with Sinn Fein following the St. Andrews Agreement.  Only a few months ago, it still formed part of Diane Dodd’s European Election campaign.

Could it be that the DUP have finally recognised that the contradiction is working against them and that a new approach is needed?  Mr. Paisley could easily have said that his hard-line has been the reason why Sinn Fein have “danced to the DUP tune”  in Government.  However, actually praising Sinn Fein goes one step beyond that. 

Could it be that the DUP have seen Allister’s trap and have began to pave the way towards accepting Martin McGuinness as First Minister in 2011?

Il predecessore di Peter Robinson si complimenta con il Sinn Fein per aver mantenuto la propria parola in materia di power-sharing nonostante la minaccia dissidente

L’ex leader unionista Ian Paisley auspica  e incoraggia una stabilizzazione dei rapporti tra Peter Robinson e Martin McGuinness, rispettivamente primo e vice primo ministro nordirlandese.
Sinn Fein e Democratic Unionist Partu (DUP) sono attualmente in trattative per il trasferimento dei poteri di polizia e giustizia a Stormont. Pronto il ’sì’ di McGuinness all’offerta proposta da Gordon Brown, mentre il partito unionista persiste nel ‘tirare la corda’.
“La cosa che mi incoraggia è il fatto che, finora, gli shinners hanno mantenuto la parola e non c’è dubbio che sia odioso l’opposizione attuata da persone che una volta erano con loro”, ha detto Paisley a RTE.
“Penso che non esista alcun motivo per cui tale rapporto non dovrebbe stabilizzarsi con Peter (Robinson) in un campo minato che è molto esplosivo in politica dell’Ulster e per cui hanno bisogno di lavorare con grande attenzione”, ha aggiunto.
“Non credo che la maggioranza dei cattolici romani e la maggior parte dei protestanti vorrebbero tornare a quello che avevamo. C’è un grande sollievo, la gente sta cominciando a tornare alla normalità”.

Traduci l’articolo…

Paisley hails Sinn Fein over power-sharing (U TV)
Ian Paisley Snr has praised Sinn Fein for keeping its word on power-sharing despite the dissident threat.
The former Democratic Unionist leader said he was encouraged and hoped relations between First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness would “steady”.
Mr McGuinness branded groups like the Continuity IRA traitors after they killed a policeman in Craigavon in March.
The two parties are still negotiating the handing over of policing powers from London to Stormont.
“What encourages me is the fact that, so far, the Sinn Feiners have kept their word and there’s no doubt that there’s a hatred coming to them from people that once were with them,” Mr Paisley told RTE.
He said Mr McGuinness was very fair and he had a good relationship with him.
“I think there’s no reason why that relationship should not steady itself with Peter in a minefield that is very explosive in Ulster politics and they need to work with great care,” he added.
“I don’t think that the majority of Roman Catholics and the majority of Protestants would go back to what we had. There’s a great relief, people are beginning to get back to normality.”

 

Just read this report from the Madison Eagle (in New Jersey (thanks Eagle for pointing out the mistake) in the US) via Bobballs via Sluggerotoole.

I think it’s fairly safe to say that the journalist writing the report has a far from in-depth understanding of Irish history and politics, otherwise Adams’ “historical overview” would have met with the contempt and ridicule it deserves. In fairness to Gerry though, I expect that some of the factual errors are the fault of the reporter and not down to Gerry.

Providing a historical overview, Adams said the problems in Northern Ireland can be traced directly to British colonization of the Irish. Ultimately, the nation was partitioned in 1916 into the independent Republic of Ireland, and the six counties of Northern Ireland, which were under direct British rule.

Hard to know where to start deconstructing so many mistakes in a single paragraph made up of two sentences. So best to leave that there.

If Adams can be excused responsibility for that, what follows next is in quotation marks. And is, frankly, jaw-dropping, and reminiscent of Adams claiming during his first trip to the States on Larry King Live I think it was, that Catholics didn’t have the vote in NI.

Spurred on by the American civil rights movement, he became involved in a peaceful movement to end the subjugation of Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the peaceful campaign ended in January 1972 when the British Army opened fire during a march, killing 13 unarmed Catholic men in a day since known as “Bloody Sunday.”
“That was followed with years of increasing persecution, imprisonments without trial, violence by both sides and the largest foreign occupation of any nation since World War II.
“A friend I knew in South Africa said he had never seen such a military concentration as he saw on the streets of Belfast,” Adams said. “You (Catholics) could be arrested, property seized, you could be whipped and flogged with a cat-of-nine-tails.”

I’m not sure what is most outrageous. The bit about the largest foreign occupation of any nation since World War II or the idea that you could be flogged with a cat-of-nine-tails in the years after Bloody Sunday. There is also of course the writing out of the fact that the organisation Adams belonged to was active before Bloody Sunday.

But it seems he topped that, although this is only reported rather than directly quoted.

The British issued shoot-to-kill orders and colluded with the Protestant Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) in a campaign of violence against the IRA. Laws were put in place that were every bit as lethal as those that bolstered apartheid in South Africa, Adams said.

Now we all – or most of us anyway – know the quote from the South African minister for justice in April 1963 saying he would swap his security legislation for one clause of the NI Special Powers Act (See page three of this Campaign for Social Justice pamphlet from 1964). And we all know that comparisons are often made between South Africa and NI. But this is plain stupid, and diminishes the injustices suffered by the people of South Africa. A bit like how saying unionists were the same as nazis diminishes what happened there.

This is especially baffling when Adams included in his talk a sensible reflection of the current reality within NI, and what is in fact the dominant fact behind the strategy he has driven his organisation towards over the last two decades or so.

“Our most compelling challenge is to make peace with ourselves,” said Adams. “We must reflect our needs, our tolerance and our strength as a people with the unionists.”

I know that there must be a temptation to keep things simple for Irish-Americans, and to exaggerate to ensure their continued interest in NI and in giving money to Adams’ party. But when Adams – who has got where he is by dealing with realities of different sorts – comes out with this sort of guff, you do have to wonder. He must know too that this sort of stuff will be picked up back home, and used by unionists to create the kind of artificial row that keeps the politics of confrontation alive. Perhaps that is part of the point. But if we are to get beyond the divisions of the people of Ireland, then telling lies to our constituencies at home and abroad about the reality of life in NI before 1969 is hardly helpful. In a way, I admire the cheek and cynicism involved in this type of then. But on the other hand, I can’t help but find it utterly absurd.

There will be those though who will be pleased to see what Adams has been saying. Ed Moloney’s Secret History of the IRA credited Adams with almost superhuman powers, and argued that he had been planning the peace process since the late 1970s. The Long War, in other words, was in fact The Long Peace Process. The following quote from the article may be misrepresenting what Adams actually said. I think Adams is talking about the 1990s and not the 1970s, and the reporter has run the two together, but if not Moloney’s version has added credibility.

By 1976, the peace process had started, but it would not bear fruit for two more decades, largely because the British demanded the IRA give up its arms before talks could begin.
“The only thing we were sure of was that we needed a dialogue,” Adams said. “The demand that the IRA stop (collecting arms) before the British would start talks seemed ridiculous.”

His former comrades now in opposition to him have made much of Gerry’s rather shaky grasp of history. We know he has “misremembered” what he sang in Long Kesh, while the likes of Marian Price and Brendan Hughes have ridiculed his denials of membership of the Provisionals. More serious though has been the ongoing debate over whether Adams and co have been lying over negotiations with the British during the hunger strikes, and whether they could have called it off earlier but chose not to to facilitate their move into politics. They might take note of the following description of Cage 11, which is a far from accurate description.

Adams was imprisoned from 1973 to 1977 in the notorious “Cage 11” in Maze Prison. More than 600 prisoners were kept in cells the size of bathrooms “with nothing but their self-worth.”

A lot of this is of course nitpicking. But there’s a serious edge to it. Unless we can move beyond the need to spout nonsense about our past, the process of reconciliation will prove much more difficult than it needs to be.

Much was made by the left of the leaving of Domhnall Ó Cobhthaigh in Femanagh to the Socialist Party*, and many have left on similar reasons before and will no doubt after.  However, a concrete analysis of the political situation and the present strategy and tactics of Sinn Féin, while unfortunately opportunistic at times, has been on whole, considering the situation, broadly correct.

It is now clear that armed struggle could not have achieved Irish unity, the Republican movement never had the force to defeat the British State and perhaps more importantly then suppress loyalism, as would have inevitably been required.  The best the Republican movement achieved was stalemate; the British state could never defeat an oppressed nation.  However, such a strategy of armed struggle in itself is doubtful due to the significant size of the loyalist population, that such a resulting suppression, if a significant portion was not willing to integrate within the new state (the possibility being lowered by the nature and consequence of armed struggle in the north), would amount to a genocide, of Irish people at that, an obvious alternative would have to be made.  It is also clear, that by the mid to late 70s the failure to make it a truly national struggle, that is of the 32 counties, as opposed to the 6 counties and the surrounding border counties, meant that true national liberation, nor complete legitmacy of the struggle, nor the practicals of how a new state would come about are possible to see.  While, the long war, and concepts such as Jim Lynagh’s maoist peoples’ war did offer a possible alternative strategy, the success of British intelligence in twarting the IRA by the 1980s (Loughgall, the Eksund etc), and the collapse of the socialist, anti-imperialist block (USSR etc) put an end to such notions.  The necessity of the peace process was therefore inevitable.  In contrast, failure of such a process can be seen by what is presently happening in the Basque country, whose national movement resolutely deserve the Republican movement’s continued support as they fight to achieve basic political rights.  However, what the peace process did successfully win was the recognition of Republicans political rights (where before we had none).  This was a victory, and it was not guaranteed, whatever revisionists may argue.  The political aspirations of Republicans are something that had been repressed since 1921.  Furthermore, while we cannot deny that the agreement was fostered on Ireland, like 1921, by the British state, it was legitimised in the subsequent vote more so than 1921 or 1937 can said to have been, with the most significant opposition continuing to come from the enemies of Irish democracy, loyalism.  This is something we cannot ignore, and finally puts an end our claim to legitimately continue the anti-treaty struggle, which in all fairness Republicans failed to complete successfully (although State repression was a defining contribution to this).  This does not mean that what the anti-treaty struggle fought for is over, just that Republicans must take account of our enemies victories.  The continuation of the struggle for the ‘the Republic’ is no use if it does not engage with social reality and make change a reality, the essence of praxis.  It also means that while Unionism and the British State agrees to work within the democratic framework of the Agreement, agreed by the people of Ireland, Republicans have no legitimate right to wage war, nevermind have a lack of popular support for it.

Under the Agreement, if fully implemented, for the first time in the history of the north, full political equality is acknowledged and the role of the 26 county state.  The biggest failing of the Agreement remains that it is not completely implemented, and thus we continue to struggle with unionism for political equality.  This said, never again can unionism dominate the nationalist population.  This will be a long struggle, but by building political forces north and south Sinn Féin can finally bring about the completion of the national revolution, halted in 1922 by Treaty and partition.  It is only at such a point socialism will be possible.

To complete the national revolution Sinn Féin need to continue to pursue full devolution and implementation of the Agreement in the north through uniting all progressive forces in the north, south, in Britain and internationally.  Evidence of success of this strategy is seen in the continuing splits in unionism, over essentially the development of democracy and political equality in the north.  At the same time Sinn Féin must develop all Ireland instututions and present areas of a shared nature as the basis of developing a future reconstituted 32 county state.  Further, a political strategy in the south of building a constituency for change, uniting along socio-economic lines of the nationalist working class and petit-bourgeois social base in the north and south and pursuing a national unity and socialist strategy, which highlights the failure of FF to achieve Irish independence or liberation, and the resulting contradictions in the 26 county state.  That is, as James Connolly argued, the national and social are one (“The Cause of Labour is the Cause of Ireland, and the Cause of Ireland is the Cause of Labour”).

Sinn Féin’s biggest failing remains the failure to deliver on socio-economic grounds in the north, and highlights the continuing colonial strait jacket of the northern ireland statlet.  The acquiesence of most notably, PFI schemes, highlights too clearly how Sinn Féin find it all so easy to drop the socialist element of Republican strategy for expediation on the national question through implementation of the Belfast Agreement, when in reality failure to strengthen the hand of Sinn Féin’s working class social base has weakened the balance of forces, and thus the Republican struggle for political equality through implementation.  Thus, Unionism can in many ways now be seen to be getting the upper hand, even if reality would begger to differ.  Sinn Féin have widened their support base to include a greater number of petit bourgeois elements, many created due to British low level counter insurgency, which included an expansion of the public sector.  However, in doing so Sinn Féin has lost sight of the fact that their power came from a popular working class base excluded by the northern ireland statelet, those who took up arms as they had nothing to lose and everything to gain, a subject people that had direct experience of the contradiction of capital, imperialism and colonialism in the north.  Indeed the only logical allies are the working classes in the Republic, who did marginally benefit from the Celtic Tiger, but who now, again, are finding themselves bearing the brunt of the tyranny of finance capital and neo-colonialism, supported by none other than ‘an executive of the bourgeoisie’ in Ireland in the form of Fianna Fail, the ‘Republican’ party.  Sinn Féin can only counter this failing by building more from the ground up and enhancing local democracy, in this way Sinn Féin undermine the power and colonial nature of the state in the north and build a far stronger base for change both north and south.  At the same time Sinn Féin must continue to critically engage with the state with the aim of enacting social and structural change, which will increase Sinn Féin’s political base and bring about the social changes Republicans desire.  Sinn Féin’s practice should change from being a strong representative, and defender of a subject people, to the vanguard of a pan-nationalist ‘offensive’ front for Irish unity and socialism.

A second failing has been that the Republican discourse is now being questioned and possibly dimantled.  Republicans should be clear that 1998 was an ‘Event’ that opened the ground to competing discourses of the peace process and the troubles.  While, in many ways Sinn Féin’s discourse appeared to win out in the early years, it would now appear that opposing discourses are taking root, which not only undermine Sinn Féin’s organisation, but the project for Irish unity and socialism, and impose doubt among the Republican movement.  This doubt has unforunately been re-inforced at times by actions of the Sinn Féin leadership.

A third failing is that, while Sinn Féin have begun to engage with Unionism and the protestant working class, it has a long way to go.  In this there is a hard balance to strike, Sinn Féin must be able to elucidate the Republican discourse so that it is acknowledged and accepted by the protestant working class, while at the same time developing shared community structures and answer the socio-economic needs of all, not just our own constituency, while at the same time not alienate our own constituency from strong representation i.e. Sinn Féin must break down the barriers between the communities.

Finally, Sinn Féin needs to actively develop its cadres, so that they are educated and professional, with the intellectual tools to be able to engage on equal terms with its enemies.  This is often inadequate, with younger members lacking a comprehensive knowledge of the Republican movement and its political thought, and thus being little more than nationalist minded liberals.  This in itself means Sinn Féin continues to drift from its base, and would explain why Sinn Féin’s vice-president was reported as having had difficulty explaining the difference between Sinn Féin and Labour.

If Sinn Féin do not do these things, the latest Republican struggle will indeed have been in vain and Sinn Féin will go the same way all other ‘Republican-left’ interventions have gone for the last 90 years, failure, or renunciation of its Republicanism, something no Republican would wish to imagine.

*It is questionable how a former member could join the Socialist Party, whose northern wing, like the Workers’ Party, championed unionism and the state over democracy and the nationalist working class, and whose conception of the national question is far removed from marxism.  I do not doubt Domhnall Ó Cobhthaigh intentions and his genuineness, nor that he or other members of the Socialist Party remain allies, but the Socialist Party’s analysis and conclusions have not changed since ‘the troubles’.

In his post yesterday, Horseman has set out to put flesh on the bones of Jim Allister’s article on his website in which he sets out his plans to wreck the mechanism of power sharing in its present form.  

Horseman rightly highlights the amendment to the Good Friday Agreement brought about under the St. Andrews Agreement whereby the party with the largest number of MLAs gets to nominate the First Minister.  

According to Horseman, Allister’s plan depends for its success on

(a) The DUP losing 9 more seats than Sinn Fein

(b) Sinn Fein having the largest number of MLAs at Stormont

(c) the DUP refusing to nominate for Deputy First Minister.  

Is (c) really likely to happen?  The reality is that the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister hold equal power.  The Assumption seems to be that the DUP leadership is incapable of swallowing its own pride.   

There is one further possible scenario.  That is that the UUP becomes the largest party.  Would Sir Reg refuse to nominate the Deputy First Minister?  I don’t think so.   

Peter Robinson has to be asked what his party would do, given that scenario.  The voters of Northern Ireland (particularly those who currently support the DUP) have the right to know that.  Robinson would then be in rather a dilemma.  

If he says he would not nominate for DFM, he leaves his party is open to accusations of (a) reneging on a constitutional arrangement which his own party negotiated (b) failing on their own promise to “control” Sinn Fein through power sharing.   If he says that he will nominate, he will upset a large section of his own supporters who would find that too difficult to stomach and more likely vote for the TUV.

Jim Allister has set a nasty trap for Peter Robinson.  He and the DUP will have great difficulty avoiding it.

Eletto lo scorso week end dal congresso del RSF, il nuovo leader del partito

Des Dalton originario di Athy, contea di Kildare, è stato eletto come nuovo leader del Republican Sinn Fein, partito politico repubblicano ritenuto connesso al gruppo paramilitare Continuity IRA.
Il partito formatosi nel 1986, era fino ad ora stato da Ruairi O’Bradaigh che aveva recentemente annunciato le proprie dimissioni.
Dalton è membro del RSF dal 1989 ed ha ricoperto la carica di vice-presidente del partito dal 2003.
Il Republican Sinn Fein è formato da membri del Sinn Fein, che si sono staccati dal maggior partito repubblicano dopo la sua decisione di entrare nel parlamento irlandese, se eletto, ponendo così fine la politica di astensionismo adottata in origine. Decisione quella dello Sinn Fein, che secondo gli scissionisti non avrebbe mai portato alla riunificazione dell’Irlanda.

Traduci l’articolo…

Republican party picks new leader (BBC News Northern Ireland)
Des Dalton is the new leader of Republican Sinn Fein
The political party believed to be linked to the dissident republican paramilitary group, the Continuity IRA, has chosen a new leader.
Des Dalton from Athy, County Kildare, was elected at the Republican Sinn Fein party conference at the weekend.
The party was formed after splitting from Sinn Fein in 1986 and had been led by Ruairi O’Bradaigh since then.
Mr O’Bradaigh, who is 76, announced in September that he was standing down, citing reasons of age and health.
Mr Dalton has been a member of Republican Sinn Fein since 1989 and has been a vice-president of the party since 2003.
Republican Sinn Fein is a small fringe party which has just one councillor in the Republic of Ireland.
It was formed by members of Sinn Fein who walked out over a decision to enter the Irish parliament, if elected, thus ending the party’s policy of abstention.
The people who walked out feared that Sinn Fein leaders would take the Provisional IRA down a constitutional path which, they believed, would never deliver a united Ireland.