nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

€3M for the Orange Order

recedite

Including €500,000 from the wealthy Irish Republic.
Seeing as the stated aims of the org are to "defend" one particular religion against another, and also to restore/maintain the (exclusively protestant) British monarch as head of state, this all seems a bit bizarre.

Its like giving money to a bunch of Islamic radicals who would see it as desirable to overthrow the govt. and create a new order, with an Irish caliph or an ayatollah as the head of state.

I'm all for tolerance and diversity, but do we have to be tolerant of intolerance?

Here's a few choice quotes on the foundation and purpose of the Orange Order from wiki;

In September 1795 at a crossroads known as "The Diamond", near Loughgall, Defenders and Peep o' Day Boys gathered to fight each other. This initial stand-off ended without battle when the priest that accompanied the Defenders persuaded them to seek a truce after a group called the "Bleary Boys" came from County Down to reinforce the Peep o' Day Boys. When a contingent of Defenders from County Tyrone arrived on 21 September, however, they were "determined to fight". The Peep o' Day Boys quickly regrouped and opened fire on the Defenders. According to William Blacker the battle was short and the Defenders suffered "not less than thirty" deaths. After the battle had ended, the Peep o' Days marched into Loughgall, and in the house of James Sloan they founded the Orange Order, which was to be a Protestant defense association made up of lodges. The principle pledge of these lodges was to defend "the King and his heirs so long as he or they support the Protestant Ascendancy". At the start the Orange Order was a "parallel organisation" to the Defenders in that it was a secret oath-bound society that used passwords and signs.
One of the very few landed gentry that joined the Orange Order at the outset, William Blacker, was ill-pleased at some of the outcomes of the Battle of the Diamond. He says that a determination was expressed to "driving from this quarter of the county the entire of its Roman Catholic population", with notices posted warning them "to Hell or Connaught". Other people were warned by notices not to inform on local Orangemen or "I will blow your soul to the low hills of Hell and burn the house you are in". Within two months, 7000 Catholics had been driven out of County Armagh. According to Lord Gosford, the governor or Armagh:

Most jurisdictions require both the spouse and parents of potential applicants to be Protestant, although the Grand Lodge can be appealed to make exceptions for converts. Members have been expelled for attending Roman Catholic religious ceremonies. In the period from 1964 to 2002, 11% of those expelled from the order were expelled for their presence at a Roman Catholic religious event such as a baptism, service or funeral

From 1921 to 1969, every Prime Minister of Northern Ireland was an Orangeman and member of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP); all but three Cabinet Ministers were Orangemen; all but one unionist Senators were Orangemen; and 87 of the 95 MPs who did not become Cabinet Ministers were Orangemen. James Craig, the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, maintained always that Ulster was in effect Protestant and the symbol of its ruling forces was the Orange Order. In 1932, Prime Minister Craig maintained that "ours is a Protestant government and I am an Orangeman". This was in response to a speech the year before by Eamonn de Valera in the Irish Free State claiming that Ireland was a `Catholic country for a Catholic people` in a debate about protests against a Protestant woman being appointed as Librarian in County Mayo

That kind of sectarianism (on both sides) should be consigned to the dustbin of history, not given funding.

As they say themselves;

Today defending Protestantism is not so literal as it was in 1795, but it requires us to take a stand for truth in an age of secularism

So they are unashamedly against secularism, anti-RC and pro-sectarian. Against the idea of a Republic and pro-monarchy.

Yet they receive €3M in charity, half a million of which this country has had to borrow to give to them.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fasttalkerchat

Attacks on halls and cutting off money income isn't working anyway. The real support for the OO comes from bitterness within the protestant community. Some will always be that way but hopefully some progress can be made through peaceful means.

recedite

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

cutting off money income isn't working anyway

Nobody is trying to freeze their bank accounts; if they raise their own money that's fine.
I can even understand Stormont giving them €500,000, after all these are the very elected representatives who insisted on including the "creationist explanation" at the new Giant's Causeway interpretive centre.
But the rest of the funding comes out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

fasttalkerchat

recedite wrote: »

Nobody is trying to freeze their bank accounts; if they raise their own money that's fine.
I can even understand Stormont giving them €500,000, after all these are the very elected representatives who insisted on including the "creationist explanation" at the new Giant's Causeway interpretive centre.
But the rest of the funding comes out of a misguided sense of political correctness.

Attacks on Orange Halls pushed their insurance costs through the roof and increased the costs of organising marches but that won't work because that strengthens the resolve of the community and increasing funding.

The creationists at stormount shows just how backwards their elected representitives are... but they're not all nuckle-draggers, a former OO memeber is now a Sinn Fein politician! So they can change

joseph brand

Personally, I find solace in the fact that they're a collection of miserable, crotchety has-beens.

The orange march was intended to instil fear into the catholics. They're a marching joke now, with drums.

recedite

Here's a link to The Curious Case of The Mayo Librarian, as mentioned in the OP.
It seems the Mayo county councillors didn't want a Trinity College educated Protestant handing books out to their children. You never know what kind of dangerous reading material she might be giving them. De Valera backed the councillors. The Minister for Local Government, General Mulcahy, overruled them, but as always in these situations, life would have been made too uncomfortable for her, had she taken up the post. Mulcahy got her a post in a military library in Dublin instead. A few months later, she got married, and was sacked.
Ah yes, the good old days :pac:
Ironic that it was Mulcahy, a mate of Michael Collins, who stood up for the ideals of a Republic, while De Valera at the time stood only for majority mob rule, the worst aspect of a Democracy. Dev had that in common with the Orangemen, at least.

Cavehill Red

recedite wrote: »

Here's a link to The Curious Case of The Mayo Librarian, as mentioned in the OP.
It seems the Mayo county councillors didn't want a Trinity College educated Protestant handing books out to their children. You never know what kind of dangerous reading material she might be giving them. De Valera backed the councillors. The Minister for Local Government, General Mulcahy, overruled them, but as always in these situations, life would have been made too uncomfortable for her, had she taken up the post. Mulcahy got her a post in a military library in Dublin instead. A few months later, she got married, and was sacked.
Ah yes, the good old days :pac:
Ironic that it was Mulcahy, a mate of Michael Collins, who stood up for the ideals of a Republic, while De Valera at the time stood only for majority mob rule, the worst aspect of a Democracy. Dev had that in common with the Orangemen, at least.

Difference is, Carson and Craig weren't offering to fund the AOH or the Provos.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

€3M for the Orange Order

Didn't know they were for sale.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Here's a link to The Curious Case of The Mayo Librarian, as mentioned in the OP.
It seems the Mayo county councillors didn't want a Trinity College educated Protestant handing books out to their children. You never know what kind of dangerous reading material she might be giving them. De Valera backed the councillors. The Minister for Local Government, General Mulcahy, overruled them, but as always in these situations, life would have been made too uncomfortable for her, had she taken up the post. Mulcahy got her a post in a military library in Dublin instead. A few months later, she got married, and was sacked.
Ah yes, the good old days :pac:
Ironic that it was Mulcahy, a mate of Michael Collins, who stood up for the ideals of a Republic, while De Valera at the time stood only for majority mob rule, the worst aspect of a Democracy. Dev had that in common with the Orangemen, at least.

Rather than relying on the wiki article I think it would be really helpful for people to read the entire Dail debate which is attached to the wiki article.
This is what I took away from reading the debates.

1. It is clear from the debates that the primary issue the Mayo county council had was that the candidate did not have the required level of Irish. In a county that had a sizable Gaeltacht community back then, hardly an unreasonable skill to require for the job. It is very easy to use hindsight and say it was sectarian motivated.
2. The debate between the government and opposition was around the issue of state versus local decision making. DeValera was objecting to centralized government interfering in a local council decision.
3. DeValera clearly stated that he could never support a state law that that would bring religion into the hiring process. However he did talk at length about the rights of local communities to appoint certain positions based on their preferences. He used the example of Mayo with a 98% RC population and the fact that the population might desire a doctor who was sympathic to their (Catholic) views when they came close to death and the right in appointing those involved in education to share their (Catholic) views. DeValera was clearly conflicted on this issue and these views eventually made their way into the Irish constitution unfortunately.
4. Anybody thinking that the party in power at the time (CnG) were more enlightened and secular should reflect on the fact that a few years later many of them were being blessed by the Archbishop of Dublin and sailing off to fight for Franco and the RC church against the evil Republicans in Spain.
5. This debate took place in 1932. Ireland was debating the issues around hiring a librarian while the rest of Europe was on the verge of mass slaughter of people of a different faith (the Nazis) or in the midst of mass slaughter of people with any faith (Russia). You have to judge people based on the timeframe they lived in.
6. I was struck by how intelligent and pragmatic these men were. It is remarkable that 80 years later the Dail is full of spineless gombeens and cowards solely interested in protecting their own interests. For all his faults DeValera stood up to the might of the British and defied them during the economic war and in staying out of WW2. I wonder what Bertie, Brian or Enda would do if faced with these decisions? I think we probably know the answer.

Cavehill Red

Speaking as an atheist, I find it notable that people are forced to dig up and misrepresent a case involving the appointment of a Protestant librarian from 80 years ago in order to offer some sort of Catholic equivalence for the appalling and outrageous and ongoing institutionalised sectarianism that is the Orange Order.

MisterEpicurus

recedite wrote: »

Its like giving money to a bunch of Islamic radicals who would see it as desirable to overthrow the govt. and create a new order, with an Irish caliph or an eiretollah as the head of state.

Fixed.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

3. DeValera clearly stated that he could never support a state law that that would bring religion into the hiring process. However he did talk at length about the rights of local communities to appoint certain positions based on their preferences. He used the example of Mayo with a 98% RC population and the fact that the population might desire a doctor who was sympathic to their (Catholic) views when they came close to death and the right in appointing those involved in education to share their (Catholic) views.

I disagree. By that logic, the same 98% of the population would be entitled to run a black doctor or librarian out of "their" town.

On the Irish language requirement, I would be wary of whether that was just a cover for discrimination. Prior to the new State imposing it on them, Protestant schools did not normally teach Irish. Anyone who had attended any of those schools under the previous British administration would have been left at a disadvantage. In fact, I think students can still matriculate to TCD without Irish, but not the NUI colleges (originally the Catholic University of Ireland, founded by Cardinal Newman) which is another hang-up from that same situation.

nagirrac wrote: »

...the rest of Europe was on the verge of mass slaughter of people of a different faith (the Nazis) or in the midst of mass slaughter of people with any faith (Russia). You have to judge people based on the timeframe they lived in.

I tend to make little or no allowances for "the times they lived in" as a justification. Its commonly used when trying to excuse past bad behaviours, but in reality there have always been good and bad people around.

nagirrac wrote: »

6... For all his faults DeValera stood up to the might of the British and defied them during the economic war and in staying out of WW2. I wonder what Bertie, Brian or Enda would do if faced with these decisions? I think we probably know the answer.

Eh... didn't Dev start that trade war? We were unable to sell our main export (live cattle) while the British were easily able to source beef elsewhere. A whole generation of people were forced to emigrate, mostly to the UK, as a result. Dev had some "North Korean" style ideas that if we were totally self sufficient as a country, we would be all the purer for it. He thought a trade war would be good for us.

I won't get into WW2, except to say that if the Brits had lost the Battle of Britain, we would have been next in the firing line. And when Dev sent that telegram of condolences to the German embassy after hearing of Hitlers death, he didn't represent the feelings of a lot of Irish people.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Speaking as an atheist, I find it notable that people are forced to dig up and misrepresent a case involving the appointment of a Protestant librarian from 80 years ago in order to offer some sort of Catholic equivalence for the appalling and outrageous and ongoing institutionalised sectarianism that is the Orange Order.

Fair point, but do we have any statistics for recruitment of protestants to the Gardai for example, or State jobs in general? I suspect they are under-represented, while candidates with a good reference from their parish priest, and from the "country and western" locations may well be over-represented.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

I disagree. By that logic, the same 98% of the population would be entitled to run a black doctor or librarian out of "their" town.
I tend to make little or no allowances for "the times they lived in" as a justification. Its commonly used when trying to excuse past bad behaviours, but in reality there have always been good and bad people around.

My reason for responding to your post was not to defend DeValera but to reject the revisionist horse manure you were engaging in. I see you have decided to double down.

Nobody was ran out of town in the incident in question, an applicant was turned down for a position and there is zero evidence it was based on religious discrimination. Comparing it to what went on in the semi-apartheid NI state shows a complete ignorance of Irish history. The fact that the case made its way to the Dail and was debated with great wisdom in an era when religious discrimination was rampant throughout Europe is a testament to the type of politicians Ireland had back then, men of principle and leadership (on both sides) who had the good of their country at heart.

As for your opinion on "the times they live in", you can only judge people's morality and ethics based on the time and environment they lived in. Nobody is born "good" or "evil", people commit good and evil acts based on their upbringing and environment. An example of this skewed thinking is the revisionist crap from Eoghan Harris and Kevin Myers regarding the evil IRA killing defenseless Protestants in West Cork during the War of Independence. It was a fcuking war, bad things happen during wars, including killing informers and suspected informers.

There was quite a bit of appalling savagry on the part of the British who were well versed in it after the Boer war, but let's focus on the small number of incidents where the IRA did not act honorably. Honorably my ass, ask the Loughnane family in Beagh in south Galway how honorably their opponents acted when they dragged two young men behind a lorry for 15 miles, tortured them beyond belief and in the coup de grace set grenades off in their mouths.I await Harris and Myers expose on these acts of savagery.

I see you choose to ignore my contrast of DeValeras bias towards his own religion with the rabid Catholicism of those on the opposite side at the time. Does it cut a little too close to the bone to have to think about the blueshirts lined up being blessed by an Archbishop before going off to fight for the Catholic Nazis in Spain?

You also get a fail on the Trade war. The basis for the trade war were the land annuities which the first Irish government had agreed to continue to pay to the British and which were crippling small farmers (not that CnG and their descendents cared a toss for small farmers). Why would Ireland continue to pay the British government for land that was stolen from them? The response of the British was unbelievably callous in the midst of the Great Depression, about the same level of concern they showed during the famine. DeValeras mistake was in not anticipating how inhumane the British were likely to be.

Your dig at the "country and western" locations smacks of D4 West Brit snobbery at its finest. It was the "country and western" locations that gave Ireland its freedom.

Cavehill Red

recedite wrote: »

Fair point, but do we have any statistics for recruitment of protestants to the Gardai for example, or State jobs in general? I suspect they are under-represented, while candidates with a good reference from their parish priest, and from the "country and western" locations may well be over-represented.

No, we do not because our central statistics office is tiny and has more important things to monitor.
However, I can personally assure you that vast swathes of the civil service, in particular Foreign Affairs and the upper echelons of Revenue are almost Protestant fiefdoms.
Given the Dublin-centric nature of many civil service positions, and the requirement for a degree for many decent positions, I think you might find that rural candidates are possibly underrepresented in the various departments.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

revisionist horse manure ..................
I see you choose to ignore my contrast of DeValeras bias towards his own religion with the rabid Catholicism of those on the opposite side at the time. Does it cut a little too close to the bone to have to think about the blueshirts lined up being blessed by an Archbishop before going off to fight for the Catholic Nazis in Spain?

You also get a fail on the Trade war. The basis for the trade war were the land annuities which the first Irish government had agreed to continue to pay to the British and which were crippling small farmers

The word "revisionist" is only used as a pejorative term by someone who will never change their opinions, no matter what evidence is put before them.

I didn't dispute your condemnation of "the blueshirts", because I agree with it. Just because I criticized Devs actions, does not mean I support all his historical opponents. On the librarian issue, I pointed out that his actions compared unfavourably with those of another individual; Mulcahy.

And I agree that British troops, National Army, and IRA all committed atrocities at various times.

On the trade war, there were various factors. It started with protectionist policies and escalated from there. Continued payment of land annuities was unjust, yes, and perhaps they could have been re-negotiated, who knows. But the fact is Dev started the trade war. And the result was an own goal for Ireland.

Getting back to the Orangemen, why do you think the current Irish govt. gave money to an openly sectarian organisation, whose aims seem to be anathema to the State?

Maybe there is some subliminal religious thinking involving sacrifice. The idea that some reward will automatically come from a sacrifice, even when that sacrifice is futile, or even counter productive?

Or perhaps the Orangemen are seen as angry dogs; throw them a bone and they will start liking you?

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

You also get a fail on the Trade war. The basis for the trade war were the land annuities which the first Irish government had agreed to continue to pay to the British and which were crippling small farmers

DeValera continued to collect the land annuities from farmers, he just stopped paying them to the British.
The eventual settlement of the trade war involved the Irish government paying 40 years of future land annuities up front to Britain. Britain wrote off a few years worth of annuities, but we'd paid a very heavy price for that minor concession.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

The eventual settlement of the trade war involved the Irish government paying 40 years of future land annuities up front to Britain. Britain wrote off a few years worth of annuities, but we'd paid a very heavy price for that minor concession.

True, but it can be argued that it was 10M well spent in that in return we got the Treaty ports back which effectively kept us out of WWII.

Hotblack Desiato

If the British hadn't been willing to concede the treaty ports, they wouldn't have. Is there any evidence that we were able to put enough economic pressure on Britain to influence their decision? It doesn't seem remotely credible.

nagirrac

ninja900 wrote: »

If the British hadn't been willing to concede the treaty ports, they wouldn't have. Is there any evidence that we were able to put enough economic pressure on Britain to influence their decision? It doesn't seem remotely credible.

Giving up the ports though was a huge strategic issue for the British at a time when tensions in Europe were escalating. The trade settlement was in 1938, a year before war broke out. Why would they give them up? Its not like they gave up much without a fight before or since then. Where are the other examples where they gave up strategic interests? Look at the lengths they went to protect their interests, the Falklands for example not to speak of the cost of the NI conflict.

The land annuity deal and ports were both part of the Anglo Irish trade deal so its hard to say they were unconnected. I don't give DeValera credit for a whole lot but I would on this one. I agree its unlikely the economic pressure of the trade war influenced the decision but the outcome of the settlement was huge for Ireland, and clearly it was negotiated.

recedite

One country can't morally charge another sovereign country rent for their own land, or hold onto their ports. Churchill really wanted those ports during WW2 and was supposed to have offered a United Ireland, in exchange for us abandoning neutrality and joining the allies.
It was different during the Free State stage, when we were not fully independent. The British were basically saying if you want to declare a full Republic, with President Dev as head of state instead of the monarch, then pay off all your outstanding debts first.
In some ways its similar to the ECB making us pay off the bondholders, if we want to keep using the euro currency.

The people of the Falklands, like Scotland or N. Ireland have the option of full independence, by vote, if that is what they want. The USA probably had the bloodiest fight for independence, followed by the Irish Free State and since then its been fairly easy to get. India was given up without much of a fight.

Hotblack Desiato

nagirrac wrote: »

The trade settlement was in 1938, a year before war broke out. Why would they give them up?

I don't know. Chamberlain signed a peace pact with Hitler in 1938. He hoped to avoid war. It's been documented that Hitler had hoped to avoid a war in the west for another few years if possible.
If the ports had been held by the British on the outbreak of war and we didn't join the allies (and, probably even if we had, given the ongoing existence of the IRA) they'd have had to pay as much attention to defending the ports from land attack as from sea attack... Churchill made a song and dance about them later but he had his own reasons to talk up the value of these ports.

We did concede the use of an air corridor in Donegal to the allies. Ireland provided intelligence to the allies, and a vital weather report from the west coast which gave the green light for D-Day.

Look at the lengths they went to protect their interests, the Falklands for example not to speak of the cost of the NI conflict.

The Falklands is populated by people who want local self-government under the British crown, and who explicitly do not want to be annexed by Argentina.
NI is populated (mostly) by people who want to maintain the union, NI as part of the UK. If that changes in future then, according to the Good Friday agreement, Britain has agreed to accept that NI can leave the UK.
They've got more likelihood of Scotland voting for independence than NI tbh though.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

One country can't morally charge another sovereign country rent for their own land, or hold onto their ports.

This happens all the time. It is normal for a breakaway state to be left with legacy debts, the original plan as part of the Anglo Irish Treaty was for the Free State to pay a pro-rata portion of the UK's sovereign debt at the time of independence, this was eventually waived.

We weren't paying rent for our own land, it was repayments on loans paid to farmers to buy their land.

Countries have bases in other countries all the time. E.g. the UK still has two sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and there's Guantanamo base in Cuba which is remarkable given that the US and Cuba have been close to war several times.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

We weren't paying rent for our own land, it was repayments on loans paid to farmers to buy their land.

Right, but it was part of land redistribution. The argument goes that farmers had been paying rent for centuries to absentee landlords, and when it came to buying out that same land, some say the land of a country belongs to the people who live in it. In reality though, its difficult to say exactly which landholdings were purchased and built up long ago, through hard work, and which were "stolen" by unjust means. In any case you can't just give out land for free to the small farmers, so I think it was valid for Dev to continue colllecting the annuities. But as the money to buy out the farms had been loaned by the British exchequer, prior to Irish independence, through the Land Commission, the only question was which taxpayer should collect the repayments; Irish, British or both.

ninja900 wrote: »

Countries have bases in other countries all the time. E.g. the UK still has two sovereign base areas in Cyprus, and there's Guantanamo base in Cuba which is remarkable given that the US and Cuba have been close to war several times.

Yes, but they lease the bases from the host country, by mutual agreement. This is where the negotiation comes in, or could have come in, if Dev had been a bit less stubborn and a bit more savvy.

Guantanamo is a disputed case. Castro says his sovereign state never agreed to the US naval base, but apparently he made the mistake of cashing the first rent cheque he received from the Americans, and that was it :pac: hey presto he was fully signed up.
Its a legal loophole though. In reality there is no agreement between the two parties, which is why the detainees/residents there have no protection from either the US or Cuban laws. Its a legal limbo.

Hotblack Desiato

The SBAs in Cyprus aren't leased, they are sovereign UK territory in perpetuity, as agreed by treaty, and no rent is payable.
We like to play the 'oppressed victim of colonialism' card but it often suits both parties to allow a world power a concession. They benefit from the protection of the world power, and from trade. Castro allowed the Russian missiles in after all, he was under no obligation to do so.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Guantanamo is a disputed case. Castro says his sovereign state never agreed to the US naval base, but apparently he made the mistake of cashing the first rent cheque he received from the Americans, and that was it :pac: hey presto he was fully signed up.

His state is a successor state of the previous regimes, so is bound by the agreements entered into by the previous regimes - unless he chooses to unilaterally renounce them and accept the consequences, which is fine if your military and economic position can withstand that.

It suited us to blame all our ills on British absentee landlords (and sometimes justifiably so) but if the British landlords had never taken over our lands, Irish landlords would have. From the point of view of the small farmer either paying rent, or land annuities to buy his land, the nationality of the person he was renting or buying from really made no difference.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

His state is a successor state of the previous regimes, so is bound by the agreements entered into by the previous regimes

I think after a revolution, a new regime is usually considered a new State, and not liable to stick to any agreements made by their predecessor. As opposed to a new govt. formed after a normal election which is bound. War and revolution are what happens when law fails, therefore war is incompatible with law, and trumps it. All is fair etc...
For example, Russia currently has valuable trade agreements with the Syrian govt. which would likely go instead to different international backers of the rebels, if the rebels succeed.

From the point of view of the small farmer either paying rent, or land annuities to buy his land, the nationality of the person he was renting or buying from really made no difference.

True, but from the point of view of a colony gaining independence, it makes no sense to continue sending wealth out of the country, if it can be shown that the beneficiary persons, or even investment funds, acquired their rights through conquest, and have always been based in the colonial power. They are no longer entitled to receive that wealth, if they ever were, from an ethical standpoint.
That applies particularly to rent, but repayment of a British loan (the annuities) is less straightforward.

The situation with the bases in Cyprus is an interesting one alright; they seem to be remnants of the original colony, so they would be analogous to the original Irish treaty ports alright. It seems like an anachronism in the modern world though. But as long as both parties derive a benefit, then the arrangement there will presumably continue.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I think after a revolution, a new regime is usually considered a new State, and not liable to stick to any agreements made by their predecessor.

They may choose to tear up previous agreements yes, but then you don't need a revolution to tear up international agreements. The other countries won't like it, but they may or may not be in a position to do anything about it (sanctions, war, etc)

Zamboni

recedite wrote: »

Including €500,000 from the wealthy Irish Republic.
Seeing as the stated aims of the org are to "defend" one particular religion against another, and also to restore/maintain the (exclusively protestant) British monarch as head of state, this all seems a bit bizarre.

Its like giving money to a bunch of Islamic radicals who would see it as desirable to overthrow the govt. and create a new order, with an Irish caliph or an ayatollah as the head of state.

I'm all for tolerance and diversity, but do we have to be tolerant of intolerance?

Here's a few choice quotes on the foundation and purpose of the Orange Order from wiki;
That kind of sectarianism (on both sides) should be consigned to the dustbin of history, not given funding.

As they say themselves;
So they are unashamedly against secularism, anti-RC and pro-sectarian. Against the idea of a Republic and pro-monarchy.

Yet they receive €3M in charity, half a million of which this country has had to borrow to give to them.

You should make a complaint to the Peace III Programme and the SEUPB if you disagree with the funding.
Fwiw, I think it's a legitimate complaint and against the goals of the funding.

http://www.seupb.eu/TNS/contactus.aspx

recedite

Zamboni wrote: »

You should make a complaint to the Peace III Programme and the SEUPB if you disagree with the funding.

Got a reply from the EU Commission in Brussels;

Thank you for your e-mail of 15 November concerning EU funding for the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland under the PEACE III programme 2007-2013.
Under the principle of shared management of the European Union's Structural Funds, the Member States have primary responsibility for awarding funding to projects and for ensuring that their implementation is in line with the specific aims of each programme and with the wider objectives of Regional Policy.
My services have contacted the managing authority of the PEACE III Programme, the Special European Union Programmes Body (SEUPB), to receive clarification about the approval of the aforementioned project as well as its specific objectives and implementation.
SEUPB has confirmed that the Orange Order has been awarded almost EUR 4.5 million for the project "Reaching out through Education and Cultural Heritage" (REACH). The project will include the extension and refurbishment of the Orange Order's headquarters so as to create educational and interpretative centres that will be open to the general public, incl. schools and community groups, and will specifically aim to create understanding, tolerance and mutual respect. The project also features a strong crossborder element and outreach activities which will encourage an open dialogue across communities and the existing perceptions about the Orange Order. The managing authority also substantiated that the project meets the specific selection criteria for funding under priority 2.1 "Creating shared public spaces" of PEACE III and that its implementation and adherence to the programme's rules and principles are being monitored on a regular basis. Moreover, the national match-funding for the project has been endorsed by the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in the Republic of Ireland.

Basically, they are saying that if the Irish, North and South, support funding the Orange Order, its good enough for the EU.

I got a similar reply from SEUPB who are based in NI quoting the same buzzwords, which I now attempt to interpret;
"Reaching out" (parading and banging big drums)
"educational" (perception and propaganda)
"shared spaces" (the museum section in the new opulent Orange Order HQ, where even teagues, if they want, can come to examine some favourite flags and other regalia of especially sentimental value)

Ah well, I suppose when the leaders of two opposing sides are co-operating to help themselves onto the gravy train, they are at least too busy to fight (for a while anyway)

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Ah well, I suppose when the leaders of two opposing sides are co-operating to help themselves onto the gravy train, they are at least too busy to fight (for a while anyway)

You can hardly blame the EU for that -- the UK government did something similar, in reverse-motion, when, a few years back, I seem to remember it stopped the pay of all NI politicians for failing to meet some previously-agreed or previously-mandated criterion which will forever escape me.

As the EU has been honest enough to reply, I'd imagine it's worth firstly, thanking them for their time in doing so. And secondly, asking them what protocols are in place so that the EU can ensure -- noting that the Orange Order appears to have spent all of the EU's money on itself -- that the grants disbursed under this scheme can fund tolerance, by ensuring that the picture the Orange order and all other recipients of this grant aid, paint of themselves is impartial and what complaints procedure there is in place in case the information presented contains significant omissions or errors of fact. And thirdly, what measures are in place to ensure that "mutual respect" is fostered by ensuring that sufficient numbers of opposing political factions visit what I imagine must be spectacular facilities, and the same facilities are not used to entrench pre-existing divisions.

recedite

I think the key phrase being used by Brussels is;

Under the principle of shared management of the European Union's Structural Funds, the Member States have primary responsibility for awarding funding to projects

So the fact that the govt. in the Republic of Ireland has approved the funding means the EU will not interfere. If the EU opposed the funding, they could be accused of being undemocratic "eurocrats".

Once again we* have only ourselves to blame. Probably some deal was done with some people in N.I. but fanning the flames of sectarianism is never a good idea in the long run; sow the seeds and you will reap the whirlwind.

*our elected representatives; gob$hites in government