Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Sinn Fein’s Killian Forde on The Role of the Monarchy
Read more about: Fine Gael, Republicanism, Sinn Féin
Killian Forde of Sinn Fein has written the following in response to Gay Mitchells original proposal regarding the role of the monarch in a 32 county Ireland.
My initial reaction to Gay Mitchell’s proposal that the British Head of State, i.e. the King or Queen, could be, as some sort of sweetener to Unionism, the Head of State for a unified Ireland was mainly indifference. Mitchell is known for his kite flying and ill thought through ideas, prides himself on, as he sees it, talking straight, e.g. his odd vision on the role of the Defence forces overseas, and frankly I always thought of the guy as a real life Irish version of Ned Flanders. You know a generally harmless crank that you both pity and snigger at.
I also presumed that his idea was an off the cuff remark at public event, a sort of eureka moment in full flow at some Fine Gael gig, him assuming no press in attendance and with a audience who are just grateful that he, along with other hardcore FG republicans such as Avril Doyle, helped save their political party from total irrelevance in the 2004 Euro elections. Thereby providing further evidence that a dead cat can bounce.
It was with some surprise then that I see that not only are Fine Gael standing by Mitchell’s Reginus Take us Backus speech but that obviously some work had gone in to it as the proposal dominated his speech and was peppered with references and events to support his proposal.
I can see in years to come at fundraising pub quizzes, the bluerinse blueshirt brigade, i.e. FG ‘activists’ will be asked “Whose speech in 2006 links Arthur Griffith, a drop out Monarch and a hill top republic in Italy famous only for stamps and being namechecked as the solution to a problem that has bedevilled the Island of Britain and Ireland for centuries.”
That Gay Mitchell is the answer may well be the only footnote in history Gay will have.
Mitchell’s proposal is flawed on many levels, and absurd in a couple of corners. But flawed or absurd ideas of today can be the “isms” of the future so that reason is not enough to dismiss it out of hand.
The problem with his idea is it demonstrates the complete and utter lack of understanding on the concepts around nation, state, country, ethnicity, nationality and identity within an Irish context. I always suspected that Fine Gaels problem is not that they are “West Brits” with a lingering desire to be back in the fold of the Empire but that they don’t and never have understood the position, ideology, desires and wishes of either of the two communities in the North.
My feeling is that Fine Gael believe that if we are all just nice to Unionists they that will see the folly of their ways and join us in a unified Ireland. Fine Gael seem to have an MRE approach to a United Ireland; Take two communities, add some soothing words, a small Union Jack and a constitutional link to a foreign monarch, gently patronise unionism, demonise republicans leave to stew for a decade and hey presto a United Ireland.
If Fine Gael were a bit part in Irish politics then this infantile understanding of the sheer complexity around identity, ownership and space would be largely immaterial. But they are not, although they suffer from a weak leader, a unimaginative and inarticulate front bench, an ageing membership and a lack of activism there USP is that they Not Fianna Fail. As such and with the understanding that in government they will be to same as Fianna Fail only more efficient they stand a reasonable chance of being the major part of the next government. Given that it is all the more inappropriate that an opportunity to indicate how they are going to approach the issues around unity and accommodation with Unionism that they run with the idea of granting to the King or Queen of England the status of Head of State of an new United Island. It is a return to Free Statism and return to the population being subjects of a unelected foreign monarch. There is nothing progressive in this, contrary to what Mitchell may think it is not a “new idea” nor is it “imaginative”.
Fine Gael northern policy is characterised by opportunism, myopia and reflexity, there is no current strategy outlined and no long term approach flagged on how to deal with the problems that currently exist on ensuring political progress within the framework of the GFA. Last summer Mary Lou Mc Donald and myself, in response to a catalogue of sectarian attacks on Catholics their homes, business, churches and clubs in North Antrim, visited the village of Ahoghill and the town of Ballymena. We meet with residents and listened to their stories, and an afterwards met with an official of the Department of the Taoiseach in Dunloy. He was as frustrated as we were in the poor response by the PSNI and the reaction, or lack of it, by the DUP. On the way back Mary Lou and myself decided we would ask the residents who had been burnt out of their homes to come to Leninster House and meet with as many politicians as we could gather. I felt then, and still do now, that political parties, in particular, Fine Gael, wrongly believe that if they support the plight of nationalists in areas like Ballymena that they would be validating Sinn Fein’s argument on the exclusive sectarian nature of Unionism. I press released prior to the visit on the silence of Fine Gael in relation to Ahoghill at the time http://www.sinnfein.ie/gaelic/news/detail/10796 .
On the drive back to Dublin Mary Lou and I talked about how to engage the southern opposition on this issue. I wanted to see Fine Gael and Labour TDs given the chance to visit the area and the chance to express solidarity with people who under the GFA understood that the Irish state would play a role in advocating for them.
On the day of the visit by residents of the Ballymena area who had been burnt out of their homes, there was a good turnout by members of the houses in Leinster House to hear their stories and what support they were looking for. A bunch of FF TDs and Senators turned up, a couple of Green TDs, and a few independents they asked good questions and there was a discussion afterwards on the appropriate follow up. Despite numerous invites to front bench opposition persons not a single Fine Gael or Labour TD or Senator appeared for any of the days meetings. Only one FG member replied to the invite and although a number of Labour TDs explained their absence in advance one very senior member of the party who was reported as “out sick” by his PA was seen that afternoon in the private members restaurant.
Simply, and as I see it, if there is no selfish party political gain in supporting northern nationalists then Fine Gael or Labour aren’t interested. Yet at the same time Mitchell will whinge about the danger of “abdicating the sole role of advocates of unity” to Sinn Féin. We do not want to be the sole advocates and I would love if Fine Gael, Labour and others would show a greater and longer term interest in the advancement of unity.
In this, though they need to start looking critically at both communities, including Unionism. Presently the Peace Process is being held up by a 80 year old Christian Fundamentalist to who secularism is a sin worthy of eternal damnation in hell. He is also the political leader of Unionism.
He made a speech only five weeks ago in Portrush which was merely a more toxic version of the no surrender hate filled sectarian bile he has been spouting for fifty years, if this man was elected in any other country in the world liberal members of Fine Gael would find his attitude repugnant and not be meek in saying so. In 2004 Ian Paisley told his supporters at the annual 12th July meet that;
“The sinister legislation coming out from the European Union which will force Christian Organisations, Christian Churches, Education establishments and Schools, to employ homosexuals, lesbians, atheists and unbelievers of every kind, is a sign of the times” and that “This so-called ‘Fair Employment’ is grossly unfair to Christians, and is an insult to those who believe in the Bible. It is an attempt to destroy Christianity at its foundation.”
Yet on this island some sort of strange oversight ignoring the grotesque madness of Paisley descends, as if he is merely some sort of crank that hangs out at local shopping centre. The High King of Irish liberalism, Fintan O’Toole when observing the American right wrote this piece of Orwellian paragraph in his book “Post Washington”.
“It is quiet simply impossible to imagine any European Political leader from a German Christian Democrat through to a Turkish Islamic democrat passing by way of a Spanish Socialist, a British Liberal and Lithuanian Conservative employing in such an unsubtle way this kind of language drawn so directly from sacred scripture, whatever their personal religious convictions might be”
Now are we supposed to believe that Fintan O’Toole has never heard of the Willie Mc Crea, Nigel Dodds, or either of the Ian Paisleys to name but four prominent Unionist leaders.
Fintan’s amnesia epitomises the older middle class liberal view of the north. The entire problem is down to republicans and as soon as we are nice to the Unionists and tweak a few laws they will see the light.
But we as a society have changed. We are arguably more protestant than the northern Protestant, the rejection of the Catholic church and the embrace of extreme secularism by most under the age of 40 have radically transformed this state. We value reason, logic, success, commerce, science and pleasure and the mumbo jumbo cogology of the Catholic church is a historic fact. We have reformed for the better laws on censorship, contraception, divorce, same sex relationship and having fun on a Sunday. Yet Unionist leaders want to repel a catholic republic that doesn’t exist, they are fighting battles with Dublin that Dubliners have long waged and won themselves. They reject the concept of equality on the basis on a fear of Rome. Ironically it is if the enlightenment completely bypassed Unionist political leaders.
Mitchell, Fine Gael and any other political parties are right to look at how to accommodate Unionism. But first they need to recognise the decrepit state that political Unionism is in and also the central tenets of Unionism, what they want, what they believe and what they fear. I strongly believe there is no official place for any organised religion in the State, now or in the future, not is there any place for a Monarch. The vision for a unified Island has to be based on a secular democratic republic.
Unionism and Republicanism is interchangeable with the primary identities of British and Irish respectively. The challenge for Irish republicans is about creating a space around the trappings, offices and operation of a new state that can be owned by both, it is not about republicans becoming more British.
Mitchell’s proposal is a non runner, monarchy and republicanism is incompatible, a Monopublican anyone?. Griffiths idea was a sign of the times, nothing more nothing less and based on realpolitik. During the same period as Griffith wrote the The Resurrection of Hungary a Parallel for Ireland women all over the world had no vote. Yet Mitchell’s not proposing that we disfranchise women even though at that time conventional wisdom was that it was for the best. No rational person nowadays would seriously suggest that would they?
Mmm……Eh…….Dr Paisley can you explain what the book of Esiah says about women and…….
I take it this is Killian’s attempt to up his profile to justify his taking of Mary Lou’s MEP seat should she be elected in Dublin Central
I particularily like the freudian slip in “On the drive back to Dublin Mary Lou and I talked about how to engage the southern opposition on this issue. I wanted to see Fine Gael and Labour TDs given the chance to visit the area and the chance to express solidarity with people who under the GFA understood that the Irish state would play a role in advocating for them.”
So the rest of us are the southern opposition? Are Sinn Fein not in opposition? Oh hang, sure I forgot, they’re the political manifestation real government descended from the first Dail i.e. the Army Council. And Killian and Mary Lou wanted to ‘give’ Irish TDs the opportunity to visit Ahoghill, you’d sweat they owned the place. But isn’t that the problem? SF do believe they own the place and the rest of us are ungrateful interlopers and have been since the treaty. If a Labour of Fine Gael TD were to visit the place on their own steam (and who knows whether they have or not privately) what is the likelihood that the SF rent-a-mob would turn up to ensure they were made unwelcome. It is the arrogant presumption of SF to suggest that they speak and have always spoken for the Irish people wherever they might be. I’m sure there were many who thought in 2004 that Cllr Forde was representative of some new kind of SF. He even manages to slip in a West Brit reference about Fine Gael under the guise of suggesting he doesn’t believe it. Smooth. Nice.
The pig Latin is a kinda fun touch too ‘Reginus Take us Backus’, now that is more like Ned Flanders.
I think though, in light of the clear distaste present for Sinn Fein in most parts of the polity, that Mitchells comments may be too much of a wedge issue i.e. it reenforces among floating/unaligned voters the possibilty of sinn fein as defenders of republicanism (rather than allowing the other parties to unite behind anti-sinn fein positions)?
Perhaps not but i wanted to use this post to draw that possibility out among others.
I’d regard them as more despoilers of republicanism than defenders.
My point remains though, is Gay not forcing some to line up alongside them when it is
a) not helpful to his specific political project
b) an unnecessary time to force such an issue?
Cian is right this is poor political timing on Gays behalf. I think the Shinner reponse is reasonable. Unfortunately the political parties in the republic have handed over the project of unity to the Shinners and the way to reclaim that is by organising and standing for election in the north.
Love the comparsion of G.M. with Ned Flanders
Since when is making a speech forcing anyone to do anything?
I would agree with the idea that the political parties after independence progressively allowed the issue of unity to drop off the main agenda. This might possibly have had something to do with having to address the issues the voters in this jurisdiction (those pesky people) were pushing to the fore, like, jobs and education, providing a health service and so on.
Meanwhile SF were well able to spend all their time talking about unity because they couldn’t do a single thing about anything so why not be talking about the biggest possible thing they can’t be effective on. The whole of the last twenty years has involved in trying to get the shinners to realise that killing people was counter productive, the unionists to realise we down south didn’t have hornes and weren’t after their jobs, and the British that we were well able to run our own affairs thank you very much and that we should be treated as an equal partner in working out a means to resolution to the north. So we succeed more in some areas than in others. Our bad. The fact that some and it would seem a majority most of the time in the self titled republican movement have got the message that killing folk isn’t a means to build trust is regarded as a self realisation operation when in fact it was the work of a great many people and most of them from outside the republican movement. SF didn’t hoist themselves off their own petard.
It is kind of remarkable that so few people are actually quoting Gay’s speech. I’ve included most ‘monarchist’ paragraphs below
““I therefore raise this question as we stand at the grave of Arthur Griffith. If a united Ireland by consent, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, could come about are we prepared on this part of the island to re-visit the ideas of Griffith as to how we might accommodate a sizeable number of our fellow Irish who live on the island with us?
“The oldest State in Europe, the Republic of San Marino, has dual Heads of State. Though this is the third smallest country in Europe it shows that different constitutional models can work.
It is Provisional Sinn Féin policy that we should have a 32 county socialist republic. That is not a view shared by over nine-tenths of the nationalist people. But what sort of 32 county Ireland are we as Nationalists, proud to respect the memory of Arthur Griffith, prepared to contemplate? Without taking from the dignity or status of the role of President of Ireland how would we accommodate those Irish who also see themselves as British and have a strong attachment to the crown?”
So answer the question Killian what ideas are you willing to contemplate to realise a 32 county Irish republic? After all, you supported the wholesale slaughter of young and old as being worth the candle. How would allowing some people, as part of a final settled solution, to retain what is for them an existing link to the British crown in some form pain you so?
Cian, if Killian wrote this then why didn’t he post it? It’s not on his own site either. It is very much a side issue but let’s not be allowing folk to make themselve out to be all net savvy if they’re not.
I asked for his response. simple really. no cover up. Dont get me wrong its a debate worth having on a number of levels. Dealing with unionists in a united ireland is a big issue. I dont think Gay’s idea is particularly good nor do it think it will help the party in the long term. I was curious to lay out both sides and see where we stand.
Happily im somewhere in the middle, like most. Ive read his speech and heard him on radio yesterday. I think that there is a danger in his wider point-if it gets legs-of dividing a bloc who oppose sinn fein. Not 50/50 but dividing none theless.
I think the crown is symbolic of attachment to britainm, its not integral and we would be able to accomadate unionists without drawing in a monarchy.
Ineterrogating this idea is better than leaving it alone. I dont want SF to be the bastion of republicanism, I dont like political violence and wont vote for it. However we are only likely to draw out the center by setting up the debate.
“This might possibly have had something to do with having to address the issues the voters in this jurisdiction (those pesky people) were pushing to the fore, like, jobs and education, providing a health service and so on.” Equally i think discussing these issues in regard to unification is more productive.
I wasn’t suggesting a coverup just that if he is being referred to as one of the poster boys for the political blogosphere then you’d think he could post his own.
As for “I think the crown is symbolic of attachment to britainm, its not integral and we would be able to accomadate unionists without drawing in a monarchy.” I think it is a very open question (especially, if there is no one on other side acknowledging that any such question exists) as to what we would be able to do to accommodate unionists/loyalists in a UI. So, we can’t rule it out as something that wouldn’t be asked for. I’ve said it elsewhere, if the price of a UI was we entering into some constitutional arrangement with the Queen as head of state or joint head then I, for one, am against it. That doesn’t I’m going to run screaming about the place like my hair was on fire because Gay has said we should be able to think about things that would be difficult to swallow. Strange thing is that 90% of the population of the republic has an attachment to someone of foreign royalty but no one bats an eye. I guess if you’re a Polish or German prince that gets elected it is different.
I wasn’t suggesting a coverup just that if he is being referred to as one of the poster boys for the political blogosphere then you’d think he could post his own.
Well in fairness Dan as the site says this is The Irish Election. By The People. Giving a politican an account so that they can publish what they want when they want would go against that “by the people” part. Hence why his post on being asked by Cian. Same as any politican would be asked to answer some questions. We have asked a few politicans already to answer questions some have answered as you have seen posted. Others never reply so we can’t do anything about that.
Strange thing is that 90% of the population of the republic has an attachment to someone of foreign royalty but no one bats an eye. I guess if you’re a Polish or German prince that gets elected it is different. Come on. There is a massive difference between the Church and the state. For one you can opt out of the church not so easy to opt out of the state. Also the pope is as you say elected, Queen Elizibeth came out of the Queen Mother before Anne
I think it was Margaret she was out before. And yes, you can opt out of the church. Yet, you don’t get to object to your neighbour having this slightly extra territorial alliegance. I mean if the role involved her jointing opening with the President a developed parliament in Belfast each session what would be the biggy? Gay didn’t say ‘let’s do this’ or we should do that, it was ‘would we consider doing such and such?’. If not then we need to be clear why not. Otherwise, we’ve got a dose of the Meatloafs, ‘I’ll do anything for a united Ireland but I won’t do that’. Or the old classic for ‘RA ‘I don’t mind killing but I hate dat!’
Hi Dan,
When I said “The challenge for Irish republicans is about creating a space around the trappings, offices and operation of a new state that can be owned by both, it is not about republicans becoming more British.” this clearly indicates where in the event of a UI being likely that agreement should be sought. As I am a passionate secularist and republican I wouldn’t support a monarchist solution or any role for any church in a united island.
The reality is that FG, amognst others, had ceeded the unity project to SF and as I pointed out we are more than happy for assistance or partnership in this matter. And would be fine if you want to do your own thing in truly promoting unity.
Regarding your point on the who and why of my post…………………………..Lighten UP!!
Cian sent me a mail, I was happy to respond.
“what is the likelihood that the SF rent-a-mob would turn up to ensure they were made unwelcome” These few words more than anything else encapulates all that I was saying about the liberal blindness in Ireland on the issue of the north.
Dan,
In this fool’s judgement your comments are becoming progressively more bizarre and fatuous. You look set to achieve the remarkable feat of making the Fine Gael mindset appear even more ridiculous than usual. If Gay Mitchell is the king of wafflers you are a strong contender to be the heir apparent.
Remind us what percentage of the first preference votes you swagged in Artane in 2004. Wasn’t it 1.984? That hardly puts you in a position to denigrate Cllr Forde.
Loved the way that ‘final… solution’ phrase slipped into your prose!
Apologies Fool, I wasn’t aware that people weren’t allowed to ask questions of those who got more votes. Of course, by your logic you would seem to be denying cllr Forde the right to question Gay Mitchell’s comments. Oh, and good one, got a Nazi reference in there, it really makes the point for everyone. What was it again? Yes, that’s it. People who disagree with SF are Nazis. Very sharp.
Killian, I was asking Cian a question and he was good enough to answer it. Like I said, I was just querying the fact that you’d not made the post yourself or indeed posted your comments to your site since you’re listed on the link page as one of the politicians who are ‘online’.
As for “When I said “The challenge for Irish republicans is about creating a space around the trappings, offices and operation of a new state that can be owned by both, it is not about republicans becoming more British.” this clearly indicates where in the event of a UI being likely that agreement should be sought. As I am a passionate secularist and republican I wouldn’t support a monarchist solution or any role for any church in a united island.”
What should be sought on what exactly? Is it at all possible that in a potential UI that we would need to continue to respect that there isn’t just one single community living on the island and that we would need find some needs to accommodate that? And while I would be opposed to the idea of a monarch having a role in Ireland I’ll not be losing any sleep worrying about the windsors opening sessions in the Dail any time soon.
And thanks for pointing out the southern ‘liberal blindnes’, I’ll keep it in mind when you’re calling to be the voice of liberal, secular Irish youth.
Dan,
I think they call that ’setting up straw men’, where you keep rebutting things that an opponent hasn’t said. The rest of your armoury is composed of slur and innuendo.
I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of Blueshirts.
Fool, that would pretty much describe the original post wouldn’t it?
Dan,
There you go again