Dáil Éireann

[Whig]

In the discussion so far, I don't see the contradiction in cain1798's view.

If the IRA are a legitimate army fighting a legitimate war would conferring legitimacy on a state who executed IRA members for carrying out that war not seem to you a contradiction?

In his argument as he has so far presented it. Of course Provisional movement is full of contradictions.

[Danny Invincible]

But is the state legitimate?

It came about illegitimately in my opinion but the reality is that it now exists and failure to recognise this restricts your capacity to move.

So our state has somehow managed to attain legitimacy from its initial illegitimacy? How so? If you attempt to appeal to the idea that it has been democratically mandated by the majority of citizens in the state, then you are implicitly destroying any argument for the alleged legitimacy of the state envisaged by the Proclamation in 1916. In this scenario only one state can be truly legitimate; which is it?

[Gladstone]

Probably the one with the dead electorate, dead TDs in which SF got 45% of the vote nearly 100 years ago...

[eurocrat]

Cain is being quite clever here by using 'I' rather than 'We'.

He is stating his own belief on legitamsy rather than that of his party. Very few Shinners have weighed in on this one.

[Wednesday]

Cain is being quite clever here by using 'I' rather than 'We'.

He is stating his own belief on legitamsy rather than that of his party. Very few Shinners have weighed in on this one.

I doubt he's trying to be clever. We don't have an actual party policy on this. FWIW I largely agree with him.

[smiffy]

So our state has somehow managed to attain legitimacy from its initial illegitimacy? How so? If you attempt to appeal to the idea that it has been democratically mandated by the majority of citizens in the state, then you are implicitly destroying any argument for the alleged legitimacy of the state envisaged by the Proclamation in 1916. In this scenario only one state can be truly legitimate; which is it?

This question seems premised on cain accepting that the 1916 'Republic' actually exists in reality (the mad Risteard position) as it's hard to see how something could be legitimate if it doesn't actually exist.

There's nothing contradictory, on the other hand, to say that one state (the one that exists) is 'legitimate', but that the aspiration to replace that state with another one is also a 'legitimate' aim. These are different kinds of legitimacy, though, and it might be helpful to the discussion if people clarified what they meant by the term.

[badinage]

I can point you to Adams' speech at the 2005 Ard Fheis:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/8771

"Sinn Féin is accused of recognising the Army Council of the IRA as the legitimate government of this island. That is not the case. The supreme governing and legislative body of Sinn Féin is the Ard Fheis. This is where this party makes its big decisions. This is where we elect our leadership, agree our policies and set in place our strategies.

I do not believe that the Army Council is the government of Ireland. Such a government will only exist when all the people of this island elect it. Does Sinn Féin accept the institutions of this state as the legitimate institutions of this state? Of course we do. But we are critical of these institutions. We are entitled to be."

Can any SF member answer this for me: Did SF believe the IRA AC was the legitimate government from 1938 to 1986?

If they did, but then in 1986 they decided it wasn't the legitimate government, do you guys still claim that it was the legitimate government until 1986, or do you think you were wrong from 1922/1938 to 1986 and actually Leinster House was the legitimate government all along?

Or more simply: in what year did Leinster House start being the legitimate government?

[eurocrat]

I doubt he's trying to be clever. We don't have an actual party policy on this. FWIW I largely agree with him.

How could the party not have a policy on something so centeral to the Republican cause as Legitimasy?

[Skin]

[quote=Danny Invincible]

But is the state legitimate?

It came about illegitimately in my opinion but the reality is that it now exists and failure to recognise this restricts your capacity to move.

So our state has somehow managed to attain legitimacy from its initial illegitimacy? How so? If you attempt to appeal to the idea that it has been democratically mandated by the majority of citizens in the state, then you are implicitly destroying any argument for the alleged legitimacy of the state envisaged by the Proclamation in 1916. In this scenario only one state can be truly legitimate; which is it?[/quote:15rl1a0a]

The GFA in 1998 resolved the constitutional question and ended the ambiguity of who is/ who is not the legitmate state. For the first time sinced 1918 all the people of Ireland were entitled to vote on the same subject. I accept NI as a legitmate state within the UK(as repugnant to me as that is), I do not agree with its existance but accept it as voted for by the majority of the people of Ireland. My preferred option would be the government established by the Proclamation of 1916 and i will vote for those who actively pursue it, democratically, and through peaceful means. This can only occur in tandem with the existance of democratic laws and institutions. Any deviation away towards a prviliged voting system, gerrymandering of electoral boundaries , discrimination on the basis or religion would in my view scupper all that and result in conflict.

[Danny Invincible]

I accept NI as a legitmate state within the UK(as repugnant to me as that is), I do not agree with its existance but accept it as voted for by the majority of the people of Ireland.

Well that's fine. You base legitimacy on the democratic wishes of the majority of citizens. cain1798, however, has been arguing that the state envisaged in the Proclamation of 1916 is the truly legitimate state, while also recognising the legitimacy of the actual state.