"In defence of Irish Republicanism"

Fenian Army

There has been much said in the last few weeks in the wake of Alan Ryans murder about dissident republicans and drug gangs etc

I read this today, it's written by the president of Republican Sinn Féin, Des Dalton. I don't agree with the man on most things but I thought it was an interesting read all the same, to read the attitude of someone like him in the dissident republican church to republican groups involved with drugs and crime - quite hard hitting I thought

I am adding this month the editorial from the October issue of SAOIRSE as I feel it is important to share it with as wide an audience as possible:


"Many will find the following uncomfortable reading while more will argue the issues dealt with here should be avoided at all costs in the interest of ‘unity’. I believe that to brush these issues under the carpet instead of confronting them head on would be to do a disservice to Irish Republicanism. I would go further and say that to confront these issues is a duty that can no longer be ignored. A time comes when certain things must be said and placed on the public record.
Irish Republicanism is possibly one of the oldest revolutionary traditions in the world. Its roots reach right back to the end of the 18th Century and the foundation of the Society of United Irishmen in 1791.
Throughout that long history it has faced many threats and at certain periods it appeared that it had been extinguished – in the 1940s 26-County Justice Minister Gerry Boland boasted that the IRA was dead and that he had killed it. Boland was no more successful than many who went before or would come after him, despite centuries of coercion the revolutionary flame has been kept alight. Republicanism has survived the gallows, the firing squad, internment camps, and prisons.
The full panoply of draconian laws and repression has been employed by Westminster, Stormont and Leinster House in an attempt to extinguish that flame. That they have not succeeded in doing so can be put down to a number of reasons. However one reason that stands out over all others is the simple fact that Irish Republicanism has commanded, at the very least, the respect and regard of large sections of the Irish people.
Even those who would declare themselves as opponents of the revolutionary Republican tradition have admitted to a grudging respect for the idealism and integrity that underpins it. Writing in the Irish Times on September 14 John Waters, whilst dismissing the organisations to which Bobby Sands and Patsy O’Hara belonged to in withering terms he still acknowledged: 'there was something noble and redemptive about the conviction and sacrifice of these men'.
Today the ranks of the enemy have been swelled with erstwhile comrades now prepared to administer and enforce British rule, but a new threat has emerged in recent years and in many ways one which is potentially the most serious of all that Irish Republicanism has faced throughout its long history.
The emergence of groupings styling themselves as ‘Republican’ but who in reality are merely using that noble title to mask their real purpose of extortion and racketeering. In some cases such groupings masquerade as anti-drugs activists, posing as ‘champions of the community’. These gangs are an insidious threat to the very survival of the Republican ideal.
These pseudo-Republican groups seek to control their communities through fear. Posing as revolutionaries hides the grim reality that the only war they wage is not one of national liberation but instead a war on the youth of their own communities. The forcing of a father to present his son for a punishment shooting as happened in Derry is medieval and far removed from any ideal of progressive Republicanism.
The drugs’ gangs who peddle their wares in communities throughout Ireland and across all classes are enemies of the Irish people. The community and political activists who oppose them deserve our full and active support. Irish Republicans are rightly proud of the part they played in groups such as Concerned Parents Against Drugs in the 1980s, and today it is vital that Irish Republicans continue to stand by their communities both urban and rural in opposing these dealers of death and social destruction.
However the pseudo-Republican groupings that take money from the drug dealers are no less parasitical than the drug dealers themselves. In many ways they are worse in that they leech from the communities they purport to defend – in effect they are drug dealers by proxy with the added insult of sullying the noble name of Republicanism in doing so. The activities of these pseudo-Republican gangs have the potential to eat away like a cancer at the very heart of Irish Republicanism, leaving in their wake an empty husk with neither relevance nor credibility.
The duty to halt this slide lies with those who claim the title deeds of Republicanism. We have a bounden duty to hold out against this hijacking of the Republican ideal; we must lead by example in ensuring that authentic Irish Republicanism continues to live in the hearts of the Irish people.
It is not enough to claim those title deeds without acting on them. To do so we in Republican Sinn Féin must ensure that a clear distinction can be made between what represents true Republicanism and those who instead provide a perverse and twisted parody of it. Over the past two years Republican Sinn Féin have been direct targets of such activity. A Limerick led grouping has attempted to steal our identity and good name in order to cloak their criminal activities. This particular gang meet the criteria of the classic black operations or ‘black ops’ engaged in by state forces whereby a shadow grouping is set up which is a perversion of everything that the legitimate revolutionary movement represents. The purpose of these bogus groupings is to sow confusion, lower morale and discredit the genuine revolutionary movement.
In the past, Republican Sinn Féin has been accused by its opponents of being “elitist”. I believe this is an accusation we should not be afraid of but indeed embrace. When it comes to ensuring our movement is a credible, motivated revolutionary political organisation to be described as elitist should be considered a badge of honour.
The Republican Movement throughout its history has prided itself on attracting the most idealistic, sincere and able of each generation. In his seminal history of the IRA The Secret Army writing of the Republican Movement in the 1920s, J Bowyer Bell had this to say: 'The army council meetings and GHQ conferences seethed with ideas, disputes, options and suggestions; despite the attrition of time and politics, there remained within the leadership as much talent as could be found within one group in Ireland.' Thomas Davis sets out the what is required in forging a national movement: 'We must be disciplined – disciplined in rigorous virtue and made strong in a sense of justice, truth and national trustfulness.'Terence Mac Swiney too sets a high standard: 'We must get a proper conception of the great cause we stand for, its magnitude and majesty, and that to be worthy of its service we must have a standard above reproach'. In the Ireland of the 21st century that should be the bar we aim for. It is from such material that revolutions are fermented and through whom ideals and a cause live on.
To do other wise is to surrender a revolutionary tradition - which has survived the best efforts of both the British and 26-County states to destroy it – to dark forces dancing to the twitch of many puppet-masters.
I believe it is fitting to finish with the words of the 1916 Proclamation; these are words which all who seek to take up the standard of Republicanism should ponder long and hard: 'we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine.'"

http://thesingingflamedesdalton.blogspot.ie/2012/10/in-defence-of-irish-republicanism_5.html

Sand

I believe it is fitting to finish with the words of the 1916 Proclamation; these are words which all who seek to take up the standard of Republicanism should ponder long and hard: 'we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine.'"

Too late. Too late.

Fenian Army

Sand wrote: »

Too late. Too late.

Stellar contribution there.

The emergence of groupings styling themselves as ‘Republican’ but who in reality are merely using that noble title to mask their real purpose of extortion and racketeering. In some cases such groupings masquerade as anti-drugs activists, posing as ‘champions of the community’. These gangs are an insidious threat to the very survival of the Republican ideal.
These pseudo-Republican groups seek to control their communities through fear. Posing as revolutionaries hides the grim reality that the only war they wage is not one of national liberation but instead a war on the youth of their own communities. The forcing of a father to present his son for a punishment shooting as happened in Derry is medieval and far removed from any ideal of progressive Republicanism.
The drugs’ gangs who peddle their wares in communities throughout Ireland and across all classes are enemies of the Irish people. The community and political activists who oppose them deserve our full and active support. Irish Republicans are rightly proud of the part they played in groups such as Concerned Parents Against Drugs in the 1980s, and today it is vital that Irish Republicans continue to stand by their communities both urban and rural in opposing these dealers of death and social destruction.
However the pseudo-Republican groupings that take money from the drug dealers are no less parasitical than the drug dealers themselves. In many ways they are worse in that they leech from the communities they purport to defend – in effect they are drug dealers by proxy with the added insult of sullying the noble name of Republicanism in doing so. The activities of these pseudo-Republican gangs have the potential to eat away like a cancer at the very heart of Irish Republicanism, leaving in their wake an empty husk with neither relevance nor credibility.

These few paragraphs are the most interesting I feel, the majority of that with the exception of a sentence or two would not look out of place in an Indo opinion piece.

Sand

Sorry to interrupt the insular little world where "the cause" had not already long been dishonored by inhumanity.

And yes, to satisfy the conventions of a Provo thread, "the cause" of the other side has also long been dishonored by inhumanity so save me the whataboutery.

RMD

I dislikes Republicans, I hate dissident Republicans with a passion. I will agree though that is a good article and nice to see that point of view from a dissident. If only they took action against these "Republicans".

Godge

An alternate view is that Irish republicanism has been cancerous from the start and that the psuedo-Republicans that RSF complain about are the final stage of that cancerous decay.

gaffer91

I think it's safe to say that any notions of noble Irish Republican idealism died with those innocent protestants slaughtered at Kingsmill (and that's just one example of many I could give).

I think most rational people will by now have moved on from childish ideologies such as nationalism and instead concentrate on issues that actually have a discernible impact on people's lives, not the vague abstractions of Irish Republicanism.

southsiderosie

Sand wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt the insular little world where "the cause" had not already long been dishonored by inhumanity.

And yes, to satisfy the conventions of a Provo thread, "the cause" of the other side has also long been dishonored by inhumanity so save me the whataboutery.

MOD NOTE:

Provos and Republicans are not the same thing. If you want to critique this piece or republicanism in general, fine, but the tactics of labeling those you disagree with as 'Provos' (or West Brits, or whatever else) is both lazy and inflammatory.

Chuck Stone

gaffer91 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that any notions of noble Irish Republican idealism died with those innocent protestants slaughtered at Kingsmill (and that's just one example of many I could give).

This is wrong. You're conflating Irish republicanism with the PIRA. The PIRA were the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the clue is in the name). Irish republicanism is an ideal. You could be a Republican and be against violence.

I think most rational people will by now have moved on from childish ideologies such as nationalism

Nationalism has positives and negatives - to describe it as 'childish' is itself a fairly childish summation. In fact, I'd say Ireland needs Nationalism to counter those who would like to destroy our identity as a separate people - they're all over these boards. They hate GAA, they hate Irish language, they hate Irish music, they hate people being proud to be Irish etc. They imagine that Ireland would be a 3rd world country had the Brits not colonised us which is idiocy of the highest order.

I'd have major Nationalist leanings but would detest racism and discrimination.

and instead concentrate on issues that actually have a discernible impact on people's lives, not the vague abstractions of Irish Republicanism

Republicanism is why you are a citizen who has a constitution rather than the subject of a 'Royal'.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

An alternate view is that Irish republicanism has been cancerous from the start and that the psuedo-Republicans that RSF complain about are the final stage of that cancerous decay.

How do you define "the start" exactly? Because if you define it by historical terms you've probably just labelled the entire pro Independence side in the War of Independence "cancerous".

hatrickpatrick

gaffer91 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that any notions of noble Irish Republican idealism died with those innocent protestants slaughtered at Kingsmill (and that's just one example of many I could give).

I think most rational people will by now have moved on from childish ideologies such as nationalism and instead concentrate on issues that actually have a discernible impact on people's lives, not the vague abstractions of Irish Republicanism.

Nationalism is childish in general, or just when defined in terms of Ireland vs Britain?
Hell, if you think all Nationalism is childish then we may as well sign up to a one world government tomorrow morning.

I honestly think a lot of people who oppose violent republican dissidents are so blinded by that (possibly justified) hatred that they utterly fail to think through the implications of what they write. They see "republican", they think of the Real IRA, and they make statements like "Nationalism is childish", without actually realizing the full extent of what that statement implies.

And BTW, I detest violent groups such as the RIRA myself. But I don't allow that to cloud my view of an entire broadly defined ideology, and I think those who do are being extremely short sighted.

gaffer91

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is wrong. You're conflating Irish republicanism with the PIRA. The PIRA were the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the clue is in the name). Irish republicanism is an ideal. You could be a Republican and be against violence.

Perhaps I am wrong to conflate the two. But it is often stated that the PIRA perhaps set back the "cause" of Irish unification due to their violent tactics. These were the ones who most loudly identified with Irish Republicanism in the recent past and because of their actions I want no truck with them or their ideology.

On a broader level with regards Irish Republicanism, I think it is an outdated ideology. While it would not be unreasonable to say that because the Brits were so poor at governing Ireland, we were better off going it alone, in Ireland of 2012, what real difference does it make to me, or anyone else in the Republic, whether Ireland is united? Discrimination thankfully no longer exists in NI and I'm happy to just peacefully co-exist indefinitely.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Nationalism has positives and negatives - to describe it as 'childish' is itself a fairly childish summation. In fact, I'd say Ireland needs Nationalism to counter those who would like to destroy our identity as a separate people - they're all over these boards. They hate GAA, they hate Irish language, they hate Irish music, they hate people being proud to be Irish etc. They imagine that Ireland would be a 3rd world country had the Brits not colonised us which is idiocy of the highest order.

I'd have major Nationalist leanings but would detest racism and discrimination.

Why should one be proud of being from a particular lump of land? Nation states as we know them are a relatively recent concept. For example, here is a very interesting link showing the changing borders of Europe over the last millennium. The whole idea that people can be lumped together as a culturally homogenous group on the basis of artificially contrived and frequently changing borders is, imo, wrong.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Republicanism is why you are a citizen who has a constitution rather than the subject of a 'Royal'.

Republicanism in the Irish context generally just refers to a wish to unite the country, not to traditional republican ideals of Liberty, equality and fraternity (which I obviously ascribe to)

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nationalism is childish in general, or just when defined in terms of Ireland vs Britain?
Hell, if you think all Nationalism is childish then we may as well sign up to a one world government tomorrow morning.

I think it is childish in general, for the reasons stated above.

Chuck Stone

gaffer91 wrote: »

it is often stated that the PIRA perhaps set back the "cause" of Irish unification due to their violent tactics.

The PIRA were a reactionary paramilitary backlash to Unionist/British discrimination, violence and murder. Their ideals may have been about a UI but their impetus came from oppression, violence and institutional oppression of civil and political rights.

These were the ones who most loudly identified with Irish Republicanism in the recent past and because of their actions I want no truck with them or their ideology.

You're conflating two things again.

On a broader level with regards Irish Republicanism, I think it is an outdated ideology.

What would you replace it with? A theocracy? A kingdom? Being a constitutional republic is pretty much as good as it gets so far in history.

While it would not be unreasonable to say that because the Brits were so poor at governing Ireland, we were better off going it alone, in Ireland of 2012, what real difference does it make to me, or anyone else in the Republic, whether Ireland is united?

Historically a United Ireland might well have been a much better place if we'd had a large block of Protestants shining a light on the institutional dysfunction of the political/church cabal of bastards that got away with way too much.

Regardless, this isn't about you. What difference it makes to you is your concern.

Discrimination thankfully no longer exists in NI and I'm happy to just peacefully co-exist indefinitely.

Getting rid of discrimination up north is a work in progress (I guess it is everywhere, all the time)

The whole idea that people can be lumped together as a culturally homogenous group on the basis of artificially contrived and frequently changing borders is, imo, wrong.

Wrong? Why is it wrong that I identify as being an Irishman of Ireland? If you were in trouble abroad would you avoid going to the Irish embassy or even an Irish bar to seek the assistance of people you might identify with? Do you watch sport? Do you watch it as an dispassionate robot?

Republicanism in the Irish context generally just refers to a wish to unite the country, not to traditional republican ideals of Liberty, equality and fraternity (which I obviously ascribe to)

They cross over but they are not inextricable. I'd imagine that many watery FG/FF/Labour politicians would describe themselves as republicans and yet think that Republicanism of the northern sort is little short of evil on earth.

I think it is childish in general, for the reasons stated above.

Childish? Like having dreams and thinking that the future is bright and the world is your oyster?

Maybe that's a subliminal compliment.

Fenian Army

I had hoped we could talk about Des Daltons editorial in particular his slating of certain groups

jbkenn

Fenian Army wrote: »

I had hoped we could talk about Des Daltons editorial in particular his slating of certain groups

Who Des Dalton?

OMD

The reality is we live in a republic. Most people who talk about Irish republicanism talk about a united Ireland. That is the outdated ideology. People concentrate on whether the island is one country or not rather than concentrating on what would make life better for all who live on the island.

It is not wheter we live in a republic or a constitutional monarchy that matters to most. The idea that life in a monarchy such as Sweeden, UK, Spain etc is fundamentally different because they are monarchies does not really hold water.

Lemming

Fenian Army wrote: »

Article Quote wrote:

The full panoply of draconian laws and repression has been employed by Westminster, Stormont and Leinster House in an attempt to extinguish that flame.

Bold emphasis in the above quote is mine. Something that hasn't been touched upon much in this thread from what I've read so far (page 1)

What do card-carrying "Irish" republicans actually want given the comment above seems to implicitly infer rejection of Leinster house. Last time I checked, Leinster house was the seat of Irish government, following the model of a republic, democratically elected, etc. etc.

Given that this article comes from a figurehead and would be considered reasonably reflective of said card-carrying members views and attitudes, do these people actually recognise and accept the Irish government as the institution stands (corruption allegations and popular dissent over austerity not withstanding)?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What would you replace it with? A theocracy? A kingdom? Being a constitutional republic is pretty much as good as it gets so far in history.

Assuming that the answer to my question above is confirmation that Irish republicans do not accept Leinster house, what would you replace governance with that ignores the will & wishes of the Irish population-at-large?

Fenian Army

jbkenn wrote: »

Who Des Dalton?

I say who he is in the OP.... resident of Republican Sinn Féin

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is wrong. You're conflating Irish republicanism with the PIRA. The PIRA were the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the clue is in the name). Irish republicanism is an ideal. You could be a Republican and be against violence.

Ah yes... the Irish 'naming' issue.

The problem is that it is not merely Joe Bloggs who conflates the two, but Repub- I mean um.. er.. left wing radicals themselves? God-damn it I'll call them Republicans, it's a lazy by-word, but we all know where we are coming from. I'll grant SSR the point that knee-jerk insults get no-where, and a need for some sort of delineation is necessary in a thread which is specifically about 'republicanism' as a political position, but the other extreme nonetheless invites pedanticism and political-correctness.

I mean, seriously, do you know of anyone in Ireland (the island) who feels really strongly about having a president as head of state IN ISOLATION?

It's like saying that people are interested in the colours green, white and orange VS red, white and blue on the grounds of artistic merit. :pac:

Equally although there are distinctions between the PORC IRAs (Provisional, Official, Real, Continuity) within reason one can say IRA and not have to specify you aren't, let's say, talking about the Invincibles. Same thing goes for the 'loyalists'. This is particularly important in a country that has a completely ridiculous amount of political schisms. The situation is of course complicated by both loyalist and republican groups appealing to cultural heritage for their naming conventions - why else would we have had six separate distinct parties named 'Sinn Fein'?

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

I mean, seriously, do you know of anyone in Ireland (the island) who feels really strongly about having a president as head of state IN ISOLATION?

I'd imagine it's the default position of the vast majority of people on the island to prefer living in a constitutional republic with a President as our ceremonial head of state.

No?

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd imagine it's the default position of the vast majority of people on the island to prefer living in a constitutional republic with a President as our ceremonial head of state.

No?

Yes, like myself.

But only as a part of representative democracy. I really couldn't give a damn what the name of the position was called as long as the concept of representative democracy is upheld (personally I'd actually favour the abolition of the Presidency as it is in it's current form as I consider the ceremonial aspect for Ireland to be a waste of money as it, in my opinion, fails to provide a significant bulwark to constitutional interference, meaningful medium as foreign representative, or particular attraction for tourists)

Dubhlinner

Fairly brave to come out with that when its so blatantly about Alan Ryan. I mean brave in that RSF will lose even more popularity (if you could imagine such a thing) over it. not suggesting hes under any threat.

I often find myself thinking the continuity sinn fein/ira movement is the most bizarre and amusing aspects of republicanism

Such a deluded crowd. I suppose they are the "purest" form of republicanism in opposing both states but its like they couldn't give a toss if they had a membership of seven people.

O Bradaigh a likable character in many regards. if the troubles was a tv show he'd be one of my favorite characters. Rte seem to have a lot of time for him too - which is kind of odd given he's been their version of Gerry

Fenian Army

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Fairly brave to come out with that when its so blatantly about Alan Ryan. I mean brave in that RSF will lose even more popularity (if you could imagine such a thing) over it. not suggesting hes under any threat.

I often find myself thinking the continuity sinn fein/ira movement is the most bizarre and amusing aspects of republicanism

Such a deluded crowd. I suppose they are the "purest" form of republicanism in opposing both states but its like they couldn't give a toss if they had a membership of seven people.

O Bradaigh a likable character in many regards. if the troubles was a tv show he'd be one of my favorite characters. Rte seem to have a lot of time for him too - which is kind of odd given he's been their version of Gerry

I was actually shocked when I read it. A direct attack on RAAD and the RIRA also.

Their mentality is probably similar to how it was in the forties, in that their aim is to preserve the ideals and principals of republicanism in the hopes that it will "rise again" so to speak. Although how they can still subscribe to republican legitimacy in 2012 is beyond me.

O'Bradaigh turned 80 the other day.

Nodin

Dubhlinner wrote: »

......

O Bradaigh a likable character in many regards. if the troubles was a tv show he'd be one of my favorite characters. Rte seem to have a lot of time for him too - which is kind of odd given he's been their version of Gerry

He was Gerrys predecessor, from the early 70's to the early 80's. Were he still high profile, doubtless he'd garner more flak.

Godge

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd imagine it's the default position of the vast majority of people on the island to prefer living in a constitutional republic with a President as our ceremonial head of state.

No?

Yes, agreed, we all want a republic, we all have a republic, so why do we have any republican movement?

flash1080

gaffer91 wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that any notions of noble Irish Republican idealism died with those innocent protestants slaughtered at Kingsmill (and that's just one example of many I could give).

I think most rational people will by now have moved on from childish ideologies such as nationalism and instead concentrate on issues that actually have a discernible impact on people's lives, not the vague abstractions of Irish Republicanism.

Our Taoiseach gave an oration at Béal na mBláth fairly recently and paid tribute to a famous Irish republican. It's safe to say that Irish republicanism and nationalism is alive and well, it's childish and naive to think otherwise.

Fenian Army

Another Confederate Keith?

Chuck Stone

James Longstreet. wrote: »

Des Dalton, Ulster is free and you won't ever see it in a 32 county Irish Republic. So time for you to get over it and just accept you can't defeat the patriots of Ulster who refuse to be sucked into your Romanist ideal.

You're pathetic.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Yes, agreed, we all want a republic, we all have a republic, so why do we have any republican movement?

The word in bold is the problem there, there's quite a few people in the North Eastern corner of the island who want a republic but don't have one.

Godge

An Coilean wrote: »

The word in bold is the problem there, there's quite a few people in the North Eastern corner of the island who want a republic but don't have one.

The last time I looked the majority of people in that north-eastern corner of the island didn't want a republic and have expressed that view (by proxy throught the parties they have voted for) in democratic elections for the last 20 years.

There is a republic in our country, no need for a republican movement here.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

The last time I looked the majority of people in that north-eastern corner of the island didn't want a republic and have expressed that view (by proxy throught the parties they have voted for) in democratic elections for the last 20 years.

There is a republic in our country, no need for a republican movement here.

....which is the equivalant of going to a country with christian democrats, telling them they live in a christian democracy and expecting them to disband.

OMD

Nodin wrote: »

....which is the equivalant of going to a country with christian democrats, telling them they live in a christian democracy and expecting them to disband.

No it's not. Not even remotely.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

The last time I looked the majority of people in that north-eastern corner of the island didn't want a republic and have expressed that view (by proxy throught the parties they have voted for) in democratic elections for the last 20 years.

There is a republic in our country, no need for a republican movement here.

Yes, I am aware of that, so am I to take it then that you don't believe that for the minority in that part of the island that wanting to live in a republic is a legitimate aspiration?

beeno67

An Coilean wrote: »

Godge wrote: »

The last time I looked the majority of people in that north-eastern corner of the island didn't want a republic and have expressed that view (by proxy throught the parties they have voted for) in democratic elections for the last 20 years.

There is a republic in our country, no need for a republican movement here.

Yes, I am aware of that, so am I to take it then that you don't believe that for the minority in that part of the island that wanting to live in a republic is a legitimate aspiration?

Millions of people throughout the UK would prefer to live in a republic. For all of them that is a legitimate aspiration. Why pick on only a tiny minority of those who wish to live in a republic ?

An Coilean

beeno67 wrote: »

Millions of people throughout the UK would prefer to live in a republic. For all of them that is a legitimate aspiration. Why pick on only a tiny minority of those who wish to live in a republic ?

See the thread title;)