Should we be offended by the term ‘Free State government’?

MakeEmLaugh

Yesterday, hundreds of Sinn Féin members attended the annual commemoration for IRA volunteer Martin ‘Doc’ Doherty in Finglas. Doherty was shot and killed when two UVF men attempted to bomb Widow Scallans pub on Pearse Street in 1994, where Sinn Féin were raising funds for the families of IRA members serving jail time.

During his oration yesterday, Sinn Féin Councillor Daithí Doolan said “now many of us watch Oireachtas Report with pride when we see our leadership taking on the Free State government”.

Should a Councillor whose party holds 14 seats in Dáil Éireann really be referring to the government of Ireland as “the Free State government”? If Sinn Féin are in power after the next election – leaving aside the likelihood of that event – will they continue to refer to their government as “the Free State Government”?

Or is such a term perfectly acceptable?

endacl

Only if you want the phrase to have it desired effect.

Who used it again...?

pablomakaveli

It's not acceptable really. It just shows that they don't really recognize the current state and government as legitimate. A bit treasonous in my eyes.

Conmaicne Mara

Me feiners true colours showing through. It's meant as an insult. I look upon it with contempt for the person saying it, nothing more than that.

smcgiff

SF are a very canny organisation. It's not often you get to see the mask slip.

nuac

"Free state" is meant as an insult.

I have also heard SF speakers saying "The Dublin Government"

MakeEmLaugh

nuac wrote: »

"Free state" is meant as an insult.

I have also heard SF speakers saying "The Dublin Government"

Dublin Government is a little different, though. The Government is based in Dublin. I don’t use the term myself, but it really shouldn't be any more offensive than saying 'London Government' or 'Westminster' in lieu of 'British Government'.

'Free State government' seems designed to remind people that the territory of the Irish government does not cover the whole island, and is the result of an historic compromise, one of which Sinn Fein are contemptuous.

johnnyskeleton

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

'Free State government' seems designed to remind people that the territory of the Irish government does not cover the whole island, and is the result of an historic compromise, one of which Sinn Fein are contemptuous.

It's a bit more seditious than that. People referring to the "free state" do so from the point of view that poblacht na heireann was declared by the Sinn Fein party when they formed the majority of Irish votes for the first (and only) time in 1918. At the time, two governments existed - the de jure Westminster parliament and the purportedly de facto first dail.

In 1921 when the treaty was signed, ireland had already been separated into two devolved governments, the southern of which later became the free state.

In the civil war, as the hardcore anti treaty side wanted to claim legitimacy, they asserted that they were the successors to the first dail as opposed to the new free staters.

After bunreacht na heireann, and then the republic of ireland act. the radical element refused to recognize the republic on the basis, in my cynical view, that because it wasn't them who created it they felt it wasn't a real republic. As these radicals became increasingly irrelevant in the republic, they gained support in Northern Ireland and the theory only then crystalised into the idea that the Irish republics government is merely a continuation of British rule because of partition and the real Irish republic exists to fight against this puppet government.

So part conspiracy theory, part historical revisionism, part teenage angst, people referring to the Republic of Ireland (which is recognized as a republic by 99% of the world) as the free state are postulating that it is a legitimate target to be overthrown. The basis for this ie partition is so tenuous as not to be worthy of any real consideration.

Iwasfrozen

To be honest is anyone really surprised? It's rare that Sinn Fein's mask slips but when it does it reminds you who they really are. Obviously from the intro only Sinn Fein supporters were supposed to see that video.

[Jackass]

It's a denial of the legitimacy of post-treaty Governance. I don't think it's offensive, I think it just highlights what a bunch of idiots Sinn Fein are.

Cody Pomeray

[Jackass] wrote: »

It's a denial of the legitimacy of post-treaty Governance. I don't think it's offensive, I think it just highlights what a bunch of idiots Sinn Fein are.

In practice, no senior member of SF uses the term "free state" in relation to the modern Irish state, or at least not 'on this part of the island' (as they would say). They haven't been doing that in my lifetime.

View

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's a bit more seditious than that. People referring to the "free state" do so from the point of view that poblacht na heireann was declared by the Sinn Fein party when they formed the majority of Irish votes for the first (and only) time in 1918.

Sinn Fein did NOT achieve a majority of the votes cast in the 1918 election. The combined number of votes for the other parties surpassed them. As such, the idea that there was a "clear consensus" at the time amongst the electorate is highly dubious.

SF's position at the time was akin to that of FG in the last elections where they were the largest party by vote share - that though doesn't mean they can disregard the current constitutional structure we have in place!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

At the time, two governments existed - the de jure Westminster parliament and the purportedly de facto first dail.

It should also be pointed out that the "First Dail" was basically a SF party congress. None of the other elected MPs of the time - not even the Home Rule MPs - attended.

golfball37

There's nothing "free" in this state for a working person with a family.

In that sense I find the term offensive. I prefer the term banana republic myself.

johnnyskeleton

View wrote: »

Sinn Fein did NOT achieve a majority of the votes cast in the 1918 election. The combined number of votes for the other parties surpassed them. As such, the idea that there was a "clear consensus" at the time amongst the electorate is highly dubious.

SF's position at the time was akin to that of FG in the last elections where they were the largest party by vote share - that though doesn't mean they can disregard the current constitutional structure we have in place!

Sorry, should have said majority of seats.

FTA69

When I was younger I used to use the term but I don't now. As a Republican I would maintain that the Republic to which I aspire is the one declared in 1916 and described in the Democratic Program. I don't think the Irish nation ends at Dundalk and neither do I think the banana republic we have today is the type of republic the likes of James Connolly or Pearse envisioned. I don't feel any massive allegiance toward the institutions of the southern state and neither do I buy into this mysticism about the constitution or any of that. As far as I'm concerned we are capable of building a far better state.

COYW

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In practice, no senior member of SF uses the term "free state" in relation to the modern Irish state, or at least not 'on this part of the island' (as they would say). They haven't been doing that in my lifetime.

Their media interactions tend to be very well choreographed and thus they are rarely in a position to slip up. It is pretty obvious that this video was not meant for the wider public, but it's release in error shows exactly what these people think of the Republic of Ireland. As time progresses, they will be scrutinized more and more and the cracks, like this video, will start to appear.

The lack of posts from the usual SF henchmen shows that this video is not something they want to draw attention to.

Cody Pomeray

COYW wrote: »

It is pretty obvious that this video was not meant for the wider public, but it's release in error shows exactly what these people think of the Republic of Ireland.

That ours is not the Republic our founders envisioned?

That they want a better, more legitimate '3rd' Republic?

I wonder how many Irish people would even disagree.

edit, And what makes you say "released in error"? Why do you think so? It says Sinn Féin TV at the beginning of the video.

KeRbDoG

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

...During his oration yesterday, Sinn Féin Councillor Daithí Doolan said “now many of us watch Oireachtas Report with pride when we see our leadership taking on the Free State government”.

Wait, someone watches the Oireachtas Report?

FTA69

Also Sinn Féin are a constitutional party committed entirely to the structures in the north (including policing) and are gagging to get into coalition in the south. They are an establishment party which occasionally uses a bit of left/Republican rhetoric to rally the troops.

They aren't some sinister revolutionary organisation who are plotting the downfall of the state.

pablomakaveli

FTA69 wrote: »

When I was younger I used to use the term but I don't now. As a Republican I would maintain that the Republic to which I aspire is the one declared in 1916 and described in the Democratic Program. I don't think the Irish nation ends at Dundalk and neither do I think the banana republic we have today is the type of republic the likes of James Connolly or Pearse envisioned. I don't feel any massive allegiance toward the institutions of the southern state and neither do I buy into this mysticism about the constitution or any of that. As far as I'm concerned we are capable of building a far better state.

You actually epitomize what is wrong with republicans. I'm not trying to pick on you specifically but your the only one to post this view on the thread and it seems to be a view that seems to be common amongst devout republicans.

A group that effectively doesn't recognize the state and wants to establish their own version, in this case a united ireland, sounds pretty sinister and again there's grounds for accusations of treason there.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A group that effectively doesn't recognize the state and wants to establish their own version, in this case a united ireland, sounds pretty sinister and again there's grounds for accusations of treason there.

Over-reaction much?

Plenty of people are fed up with the State, plenty of people don't recognize in this State what was sought in 1916 or in the War of Independence, and would like to establish a different version.

Just because Northern Ireland is thrown into the mixture, and some pretty tame comments about unification, you seek to add some sinister element to it.

This country won't be able to move on and debate re-unification responsibly until people exhibiting this sort of hysteria take control of their emotions as most Republicans have.

coolemon

I dont see why some are seeing it as SF 'wothout the mask'. This video demonstrates the opposite. That while SF have been completely absorbed into establishment politics, including running for position as president of the south, that SF still talk a talk of radical republicanism to their grassroots to keep them on side.

This video is SF with the mask on. Adams and co in the Dail, and McGuinness in the north sitting comfortably implementing austerity with complete acceptance of partition and the institutions north and south - and then talking the talk to the grass roots trying to convince them that they still hold dear to their leftish republican principles and that they stand for something.

And as for the question. If you accept the southern regime and see it as legitimate then yes, I think you should be offended by the term free state. But im not.

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Over-reaction much?

Plenty of people are fed up with the State, plenty of people don't recognize in this State what was sought in 1916 or in the War of Independence, and would like to establish a different version.

Just because Northern Ireland is thrown into the mixture, and some pretty tame comments about unification, you seek to add some sinister element to it.

This country won't be able to move on and debate re-unification responsibly until people exhibiting this sort of hysteria take control of their emotions as most Republicans have.

The state itself isnt really the problem it's the politicians. If you had a political movement in any other country who didn't recognize the state and its institutions it would be treated with suspicion.

The disdain that Republicans seem to have for this state and its citizens is actually a bit shocking at times.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The disdain that Republicans seem to have for this state and its citizens is actually a bit shocking at times.

At times when? at times during history? Yes, during history, not now; not in this State.

I wouldn't call failure of modern Republicans to reconcile the Republic founded after 1918 with that State founded in 1922 or the 1937 State as "disdain", or even "shocking".

Words I might use would be "balanced", "sensible" and "historically and substantively correct"

wolfpawnat

So some people don't feel like they should accept what was accepted by Collins and Co in the 20's and that means they are sinister and untoward.

I see it as the Free-State, it is not what Ireland fought for, sentimental I know, but it is missing six counties so to me, it is not Ireland. I see us all as one. Forgive me if that is sinister, to see Irish people north of Louth as foreign to me is the sinister act.

COYW

wolfpawnat wrote: »

to see Irish people north of Louth as foreign to me is the sinister act.

It's not a sinister act, it's reality.

FTA69

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You actually epitomize what is wrong with republicans. I'm not trying to pick on you specifically but your the only one to post this view on the thread and it seems to be a view that seems to be common amongst devout republicans.

A group that effectively doesn't recognize the state and wants to establish their own version, in this case a united ireland, sounds pretty sinister and again there's grounds for accusations of treason there.

B*llocks; for want of a better word. As far as I'm concerned the state (most states for that matter) isn't run for the people by the people, instead it has been largely orientated toward sectional interests since its inception. Any notion of the Democratic Program went out the window once the Free Staters won and solidified their position, De Valera and his mob were much the same. It became a state dominated by the small business person and the strong farmer while those who didn't have much land or none at all were largely ignored; hence the massive emigration we had after independence. The same eejits we see today denying class exists in Ireland were found back then as well. Along with the political and state elite we also had the Church preaching its conservative nonsense and attempting to scupper any semblance of progressive social or economic initiatives that popped up. Even today why should someone feel this massive allegiance toward a state that is shamelessly governed in the interests of an elite divorced from the lives of the ordinary citizen?

You can fetishise allegiance to the police, or the military or "Bunreacht na hÉireann" or any of that other nonsense all you want. The only Republic I ever wish to see in Ireland is a Worker's Republic consisting of the entire nation.

cameramonkey

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Should a Councillor whose party holds 14 seats in Dáil Éireann really be referring to the government of Ireland as “the Free State government”? If Sinn Féin are in power after the next election – leaving aside the likelihood of that event – will they continue to refer to their government as “the Free State Government”?

Or is such a term perfectly acceptable?

Where is he a Councillor for?

wolfpawnat

COYW wrote: »

It's not a sinister act, it's reality.

Everyone in the 32 counties is Irish. Some call themselves unionist, some nationalist, but they are all Irish. What country are they in? Ireland. They are not foreigners, they are our own. I refuse to recognize a foreign forced division of my country.

FTA69

COYW wrote: »

It's not a sinister act, it's reality.

Right so someone in Cavan walks five minutes up the road into Fermanagh to visit a neighbour for tea and you somehow think they've traversed into a different country to converse with a foreigner? It's gas the hoops people will jump through to justify partition. I can see where some people may be coming from with some of the wider political concerns but when it descends into suggesting the likes of the Tyrone football team or Mary McAleese are foreigners then it's just laughable really.

makaveli,

again there's grounds for accusations of treason there

Treason? I'd say a much larger treason would be running the country into the absolute ground in the interests of a small financial elite who ruined states the world over. The Irish people have historically been blackguarded, and it wasn't at the hands of Republicans but the shower of gombeens we've had in power since 1923. I love Ireland and have been active since my teens in promoting it's sovereignty and it's culture. I think those who think "Ireland" is limited to 26 counties and seek to shame-facedly limit the concept of Irishness and deny it to their compatriots are far better candidates for the treason charge.

Iwasfrozen

FTA69 wrote: »

The only Republic I ever wish to see in Ireland is a Worker's Republic consisting of the entire nation.

Yeah good luck with that. :rolleyes:

ONeill2013

it's not meant as an insult, most older people I know refer to ROI as the free state, some of these people have little interest in politics, i think my grand-parents even call it that.

Cody Pomeray

COYW wrote: »

It's not a sinister act, it's reality.

Not according to the Irish Government; this State recognizes as legitimate claim to Irish nationality of all citizens of this island. The State recognizes this claim as being equally legitimate as someone born in West Kerry.

You're not denying that are you? Sounds "treasonous" and "sinister" to me.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're not denying that are you? Sounds "treasonous" and "sinister" to me.

I suggest you look up the constitution. Treason is defined in it.

So are lots of other concepts such as that of all Irish citizens owing fidelity to the Nation and loyalty to the State (and its institutions) as fundamental political duties - political duties which very many "Republicans" have shown themselves to be as likely to honour as the average Unionist.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

I suggest you look up the constitution. Treason is defined in it.

Sorry I just went by the dictionary version, I didn't know I was charging the poster with the article 39 defined offence... wow. I guess i better look up the constitution. Do you have a link?

thanks for the legal clarity there in advance.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Sorry I just went by the dictionary version, I didn't know I was charging the poster with the article 39 defined offence... wow. I guess i better look up the constitution. Do you have a link?

thanks for the legal clarity there in advance.

Try using Google. You may have heard about it even if you are a bit vague about the Constitution and its contents. It isn't an "Optional Extra".

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

Try using Google. You may have heard about it even if you are a bit vague about the Constitution and its contents. It isn't an "Optional Extra".

What isn't an "optional extra"?
All I want is a link to the constitution. You're really starting to hurt my feelings and making me feel dumb, where can i find the constitution? I just want to learn.

gallag

FTA69 wrote: »

Right so someone in Cavan walks five minutes up the road into Fermanagh to visit a neighbour for tea and you somehow think they've traversed into a different country to converse with a foreigner? .

Could that not be said at any boarder? Anywhere there is a boarder you will have neighbours in different countries. Remember the majority of people of Northern Ireland are happy for it to remain a different country from Ireland.

FTA69

Could that not be said at any boarder?

No. The border in Ireland splits communities, GAA clubs, villages, towns and even farms and houses at times. There are some houses that when you go to a certain room you get a text message welcoming you to the UK. It was a hastily drawn, artificial concept used to give Unionists the maximum amount of territory so Britain could maintain a presence in Ireland.

It isn't a natural phenomenon, certainly not to the communities who live there who regard it as a total irrelevance as opposed to an international border.

Cody Pomeray

gallag wrote: »

Could that not be said at any boarder?

But it is anomalous with the legal provisions on citizenship in this particular jurisdiction, whereby those in Tralee and in Tyrone have equal rights to Irish citizenship as a birthright. Irish Constitutional Law expressly provides for a shared island, and a desire for re-unification.

That is a vision that Republicans share with the Irish State; partitionists are completely out on their own on this one.

So while I appreciate what you are saying in terms of recognized borders being an ordinary fact of life, the Irish legal provisions make COYW's assertion that "people north of the border are foreign to [us]" is, at the very kindest description I might give it, disingenuous.

[Jackass]

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Everyone in the 32 counties is Irish. Some call themselves unionist, some nationalist, but they are all Irish. What country are they in? Ireland. They are not foreigners, they are our own. I refuse to recognize a foreign forced division of my country.

Debatable history there.

The Ulster Unionists are the results of Ulster Scotts (mostly) being relocated to Ireland in order to take advantage of large plantations of land. So they are in fact foreign, and are the majority in the North. And also the reason the 6 Northern Counties were segregated in the peace treaty, for fear that (and rightly so) the Ulster Scots up north would be slaughtered as, well, they weren't very nice to the Irish when they had the protection of the crown, so the crown protection was maintained.

Now with the Good Friday agreement, those descended from the original Irish of the North can claim their citizenship as Irish, but regardless, the majority of what remains in the North are British people foreign to this land.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying the British weren't brutal and treated the Irish in a horriffic manner, but the above is just a historical fact. If they weren't foreign and were actually Irish, then why would the idea of a united Ireland repulse them so much?

Son Of A Vidic

[Jackass] wrote: »

And also the reason the 6 Northern Counties were segregated in the peace treaty, for fear that (and rightly so) the Ulster Scots up north would be slaughtered as, well,..

Rightly so? No I don't think so. In order to maintain and guarantee a strategic foothold on the island of Ireland. The British selected a geographical region based on the maximun amount of loyal subjects present. Nothing to do with 'slaughtering' at all.

wolfpawnat

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Rightly so? No I don't think so. In order to maintain and guarantee a strategic foothold on the island of Ireland. The British selected a geographical region based on the maximun amount of loyal subjects present. Nothing to do with 'slaughtering' at all.

Also at that time it was an industrial center of Ireland.

JustinDee

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's not acceptable really. It just shows that they don't really recognize the current state and government as legitimate. A bit treasonous in my eyes.

Of course.
Also, the even further hypocritical side of that party is that they claim all Westminster expenses and subsidies courtesy of the taxpayers over there, for the seat that they do not occupy.

All a little . . . Irish.

[Jackass]

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Rightly so? No I don't think so. In order to maintain and guarantee a strategic foothold on the island of Ireland. The British selected a geographical region based on the maximun amount of loyal subjects present. Nothing to do with 'slaughtering' at all.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Also at that time it was an industrial center of Ireland.

Other considerations perhaps, but had the British fully withdrawn from the entire island, there would have been serious violence against Ulster Scots in the North, there was serious violence against them even with British army to protect them, their houses would have been burned to the ground and many would have been murdered. What kind of message would that send to colonies of Britain all over the world if they withdrew and left the settled to be torn apart by the locals? Under no circumstances, EVER would the UK agree to give back those 6 counties, it was absolutely out of the question.

Modern circumstances vs the atmosphere of the day are very different. The unionist portion of the north would have been absolutely annihilated.

As for strategic base and industrial might of Belfast, the Great British empire really wouldn't notice the loss of output from a tiny corner of their vast Empire, and as for strategic control, Britain being about 100 miles off the coast of Ireland with the most powerful army and navy in the world of the day, they could retake Dublin in a week, regardless of Belfast.

Karl Stein

[Jackass] wrote: »

The unionist portion of the north would have been absolutely annihilated.

A vivid nightmare indeed but little but paranoid conjecture.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

To be honest is anyone really surprised? It's rare that Sinn Fein's mask slips but when it does it reminds you who they really are. Obviously from the intro only Sinn Fein supporters were supposed to see that video.

that must be why they cleverly hid it on the internet. a place only sinn fein supporters can go. look at you all here, shinners to a man. God the levels some people will go to have their daily dig at sinn fein are laughable.

Crooked Jack

i use the term free state or 26 counties because it is not ireland and it is not a true republic.
im sure sinn fein will be happy to call them the irish government when they start acting like one. extending presidential voting rights to the north and giving northern mps speaking rights in the dail would be a start.

pablomakaveli

Crooked Jack wrote: »

i use the term free state or 26 counties because it is not ireland and it is not a true republic.
im sure sinn fein will be happy to call them the irish government when they start acting like one. extending presidential voting rights to the north and giving northern mps speaking rights in the dail would be a start.

But it is a republic and the Irish government is still the Irish government. It's not subjective its fact.

And people in the North shouldn't have a vote in any election in the Republic nor should their representatives have any right to speak in the Dail. They don't pay taxes in the south so why should they get a vote? I no longer live in Ireland anymore and im happy to accept that i dont get a vote there anymore because i don't pay taxes there anymore nor will the results of an election will have a lot less impact on me than someone living in the Republic.

Crooked Jack

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But it is a republic and the Irish government is still the Irish government. It's not subjective its fact.

And people in the North shouldn't have a vote in any election in the Republic nor should their representatives have any right to speak in the Dail. They don't pay taxes in the south so why should they get a vote? I no longer live in Ireland anymore and im happy to accept that i dont get a vote there anymore because i don't pay taxes there anymore nor will the results of an election will have a lot less impact on me than someone living in the Republic.

Its a republic in name only. i could call myself the Duke of Armagh but it doesnt make it so. if youre happy to accept that its a real republic because thats what youre told then thats fine for you. i require more substance however, i require it to act like one.

As for speaking and voting rights, the issue here is should you be offended by the term free state government. setting aside the fact that you should instinctively know what offends you and asking if you should be offended reeks of looking out for something to be offended by, if the government continues to act like a free state government, that is what some people will call it. its not necessarily an insult or attempt at causing offence, merely a statement of fact.

EricPraline

OP personally, I'm more offended by them routinely hijacking that particular cemetery for jingoistic ceremonies, with the military-style parades and blaring "orations" over loudspeakers. It's intimidating and deeply insensitive to those who may be burying their loved ones or visiting their graves at the same time. The actual terms used during the "oration" are secondary.