Garland, in a past article in the Irish News contends
that a return to 'square one' is not acceptable for
unionists or nationalists. But in the same piece he
outlines what a member of the 1916-1921 Club, Michael
McEvilly, stated was available to nationalists under
the Stormont Agreement. Which showed that nothing
has changed for nationalists: we remain at square
fact partition has been copper-fastened; and Irish
democracy is at the mercy of a minority of unionists.
Worse still is the fact that so-called nationalists
and republicans, the Provisionals, the SDLP, and the
southern establishment are the copper-fasteners.
course, in reply, the advocates of the agreement will
argue that the voters are the copper-fasteners. But,
as Mr McEvilly implied, voters opted for 'peace' and
ignored the 'content of the agreement'; leaving many
nationalists in shock when in due course they realised
that they had voted for Partition. Thus for nationalists
the status quo remains the same irrespective of the
massive amount of propaganda used by the supporters
of the Stormont Agreement.
asked was this (the Belfast Agreement) what many died
for, suffered for, went on hunger-strike for; was
this what countless parents and especially the aged
and children suffered for in long journeys to prisons
on visits and during humiliating body searches, etc
. . . a question which I, in turn, put to the Provisional
rank and file!
the context of Irish Republicanism the contents of
my correspondence is of vital importance; for what
we are witnessing is the biggest sell-out in the long
history of Irish Republicanism.
fact, authentic Republicanism has been abandoned;
yet the 'Lundies' in the Provisional leadership hyprocritically
continue under the name of Republicanism to pursue
their self-seeking agenda.
conclude, is it not time for the authentic Republicans
within the Provisional leadership to decommission
those leaders who have abandoned the Republic; and
who are leading them into surrender?
it is too late!
any case the Provisional leadership can no longer
call themselves Republican: for how can one accept
Partition and claim to be a follower of Tone who gave
us the objective of breaking the connection with England
(now Britain)? For accepting the Belfast Agreement
is contrary to Tone's objective.
fact it is pro Union!
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives