The acceptance of the Unionist Veto by the provisionals

[tiocfaidh armani]

Without wanting to come across as elitist, the question has to be asked is Provisional Sinn Féin a republican party? For myself I don’t see how they can be. Is Republicanism not about the Irish people as one entity (32 counties) deciding their own future in terms of national self-determination? How can a party who signed up to an agreement that agrees to the ‘Principle of Consent’ i.e. the Unionist Veto be still classed a Republican when it violates that basic principle? It makes no sense. It’s like a socialist signing up to Fine Gael and still claiming to be a socialist.

I don’t subscribe to the thought that you must believe in armed struggle to the death or you’re not a Republican. The present President of RSF was said to been the leader of the IRA in 1962 when the IRA called off the ‘Border Campaign’ due to lack of public support and operational success. But you have to call a spade a spade and anyone who blatantly violates the principles of Republicanism and doesn’t actually practice the ideals of Republicanism is not a Republican.

I would like to get a good explanation from provisional supporters how a party that has signed up to the Unionist Veto can possibly be deemed a Republican?

[Jaydock]

It's not SF signing up to a 'unionist veto'. Did you not notice that the unionists population makes up a MAJORITY of the North's population? Y'know, democracy, majority rule? Republicanism is about respecting people's votes at the ballot box, and not forcing them into something they don't want, i.e. a United Ireland.

[sandar]

Without wanting to come across as elitist, the question has to be asked is Provisional Sinn Féin a republican party? For myself I don’t see how they can be. Is Republicanism not about the Irish people as one entity (32 counties) deciding their own future in terms of national self-determination? How can a party who signed up to an agreement that agrees to the ‘Principle of Consent’ i.e. the Unionist Veto be still classed a Republican when it violates that basic principle? It makes no sense. It’s like a socialist signing up to Fine Gael and still claiming to be a socialist.

I don’t subscribe to the thought that you must believe in armed struggle to the death or you’re not a Republican. The present President of RSF was said to been the leader of the IRA in 1962 when the IRA called off the ‘Border Campaign’ due to lack of public support and operational success. But you have to call a spade a spade and anyone who blatantly violates the principles of Republicanism and doesn’t actually practice the ideals of Republicanism is not a Republican.

I would like to get a good explanation from provisional supporters how a party that has signed up to the Unionist Veto can possibly be deemed a Republican?

yes it probably is about accepting the will of the people of Ireland to decide their own future, and they voted to accept the Unionist veto.

[tiocfaidh armani]

It's not SF signing up to a 'unionist veto'. Did you not notice that the unionists population makes up a MAJORITY of the North's population? Y'know, democracy, majority rule? Republicanism is about respecting people's votes at the ballot box, and not forcing them into something they don't want, i.e. a United Ireland.

Republicans only see things on a 32 county basis. How about a vote over the whole country on the issue of self-determination. The Unionist people are an 18% minority in Ireland.

You see things on a partitionist basis. I don't.

[sandar]

It's not SF signing up to a 'unionist veto'. Did you not notice that the unionists population makes up a MAJORITY of the North's population? Y'know, democracy, majority rule? Republicanism is about respecting people's votes at the ballot box, and not forcing them into something they don't want, i.e. a United Ireland.

Republicans only see things on a 32 county basis. How about a vote over the whole country on the issue of self-determination. The Unionist people are an 18% minority in Ireland.

You see things on a partitionist basis. I don't.

Nope the vote I'm refering to happened on a 32 county basis, and partition was endorsed by a majority of the people in the 32 counties.

[tiocfaidh armani]

Nope the vote I'm refering to happened on a 32 county basis, and partition was endorsed by a majority of the people in the 32 counties.

But why no vote ever directly on self-determination? Why have the Irish people as a whole never been given the chance to endorse unification?

Is it because the British know what the result would be?

[QuizMaster]

It was John Stuart Mill who said that democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
We certainly saw that working in Northern Ireland from the 1920s. Now there is respect and participation of the minority, which is much better for all concerned.

Would you really want to see majority rule (Irish style) imposed on the Unionists against their will? We of all people should know how wrong that would be.

[sandar]

Nope the vote I'm refering to happened on a 32 county basis, and partition was endorsed by a majority of the people in the 32 counties.

But why no vote ever directly on self-determination? Why have the Irish people as a whole never been given the chance to endorse unification?

Is it because the British know what the result would be?

The British know what the result would be, but so the Irish, but the reality is that there are two states on this island now, as endorsed by the people of this island, the people of this island have recognised the two states for a long time in the south by electing politicans to government who recognised the northern state and rjecting those politicians who refused to recognise the northern state.
The last time an All-island solution was proposed there was the threat of civil war, thats what both governments know. And being a republican does not give you or anyone else the right to reject the results of a referndum and replace it with another refernedum of your choice which the freely elected politicians on all parts of this island endorsed,

[Jaydock]

Republicans only see things on a 32 county basis. How about a vote over the whole country on the issue of self-determination. The Unionist people are an 18% minority in Ireland.

You see things on a partitionist basis. I don't.

But it's not as simple as a normal vote, e.g. 18% of the all-Ireland population might support, for example, the Labour Party or Sinn Féin. This is 18% of the island's population that simply do not consider themselves Irish, and this is backed up by their history, culture and genetics. It's like saying 75% of Iberia want to be part of Spain, completely ignoring the fact that Portugal is there.

[badinage]

Nope the vote I'm refering to happened on a 32 county basis, and partition was endorsed by a majority of the people in the 32 counties.

But why no vote ever directly on self-determination? Why have the Irish people as a whole never been given the chance to endorse unification?

Is it because the British know what the result would be?

Should the German people have been able to hold a referendum on unification of the German nation, encompassing all areas where substantial German populations live as minorities, such as Czechoslavakia? Had they done so, the votes for a Greater Germany would have been greater than the votes against, and millions of Czechs and Slovaks would have found themselves a minority on the geographic and political periphery of a unified German nation.

"National self-determination" usually involves trampling all over the right of self-determination of smaller groups. The British could have held a British Isles-wide vote on unification, where the votes for independence of Irish people would have been outnumbered by the overall vote for unification. They could have justified this by arguing that "Britishness" is a nationality, and British national self-determination should not be prevented by an Irish separatist veto.