I chose to sign up to the spirit of this declaration when claiming Irish citizenship. On this day I think it worth sharing:
The Irish republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.
So much would have been better if the spirit had been adhered to. As is true of much else in life.
But the possibility of doing so still exists.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Fine sentiments which lead to the creation of a theocratic, reactionary, child abusing, misogynist state, that is only now being dismantled.
That’s human failing for you
And why I referred to hope for the future
I am all too aware of what went wrong
As with economics history, as is often the case, gets rewritten or bits convieniently forgotten to suit particular vested interests. In this case the historical events do not seem to bear this out as argued within this piece:
https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-311c-Imperialisms-memory-is-always-one-sided#.VvlhR7PTU1I
“Contrary to the claims of Geldof and others, the southern state is not the product of the Easter Rising or the revolution which followed, and it’s precisely for this reason that so much effort has been put into rewriting the history of this period. The state that exists today is the product of a counterrevolution that began in 1922, which saw the Free State army crushing strikes, the rights of women shredded and the establishment of an oppressive Catholic theocracy.
During the revolution of 1916—1922, women were active agents of change, playing a key role in both the national liberation and labour movements. Under Free State rule, their position was one limited to child-bearing and housework, a product of Catholic fanaticism. The modern Irish state exists in its current form despite the revolution, not because of it.”
Consequently, it does not seem reasonable on the basis of the actual, rather than the airbrushed, historical record of events to claim that the sentiments expressed were or are responsible for what transpired. As with so much of the status quo arguments, whether in economics or history, it is the opposite of those sentiments and ideals which is responsible for the reactionary theocracy which occurred.
Recent history can hardly be more of a negation of the above:
Church abuse
Convent abuse
Housing bubble
Anglo Irish Bank causing the collapse of credit unions yet getting bailed out.
Mass emigration
Austerity.
When were these words formulated?
1916
As I said, we can hope for the future
I can’t see you can hope to live in a better society if your analysis ignore the fact that a state with such high aspirations turned into a priest ridden, child raping, banana republic.
I think that point has already been covered
But you are saying we should not have aspiration then in case we fail?
The spirit of this declaration is indeed admirable. I suggest that Labour developing its priciples and producing something equally admirable as the bedrock of policy development, with appropriate checks and balances, might be a good way for it to begin to preach its message.
A belated Happy Easter to you and yours.
The Republic of Ireland has its problems but has a vastly superior constitutional settlement to the United Kingdom in 2 key respects:
1) the electoral system (PR based on Single Transferable Vote – we should copy this for Westminster elections);
2) the President, who has a similar constitutional status to the monarch in the UK (i.e. a figurehead) but is elected (the current President is Michael D Higgins, a very interesting guy).
Agreed
I was listening to Holst’s Planet Suite the other day and that lovely tune used in ‘I thou to thee my country’ in Jupiter.
I wish that tune was our national anthem in the UK although I would re-write the lyrics somewhat towards a new vision – kindness, equality, fairness, justice.
BTW – let us not forget that the paedophilia and child cruelty recently exposed in the Catholic church in Ireland has well and truly changed things for ever there – the Church seems to have far less sway over peoples lives than it did – witness the recent vote on gay marriage.
The spell has been broken. People will are more likely to question authority in Ireland from now on. A major step forward to being a citizen.
Lets us hope that here in the UK, the same happens to the Tories as a result of the their awful policies and the penny will drop with the public about what they are really up to!
It could happen here too! There is hope.
Great tune
It’s a pity that the UK appears to have nothing like these rather aspirational and encouraging sentiments.
Seemingly even before you become a UK citizen – other than by birth! you have to pass a test. I suspect the first question is probably are you aspirational? To which I expect you must answer yes and then apply for 46 jobs.
Alas, we Britons, we who come under Westminster rule, are not citizens, but subjects — a crystallisation of Irish objections to being ruled by a King over the water, but a constraint from which we have still not freed ourselves.
Personally, I am neither fully pro, nor fully anti, monarchy, probably because I’ve only experienced two monarchs in my life, the first of whom died when I was at the impressionable age of 7: one gets used to having the Queen around, though I really do wonder if the monarchy will survive her demise.
However, I would love us Britons to seize the concept of citizenship, to have it explicitly defined as in this Irish example, have it spelled out in law and a written constitution, under which we citizens would voluntarily consent to being ruled by the Crown in Parliament as voluntary “subjects”, on the clear understanding — what in law are called “undertakings”, or conditions attaching to an agreement — that the right of a Government to rule was contingent upon their adhering to defined standards of decency, propriety and consitutionality, the transgressing of which abrogated the citizen’s duty to obey such an unjust Government — in effect, a revival of Clause 61 of Magna Carts, reserving the right of the people to rebel, if all other measures have failed.
See (though I hasten to add that, as a pro – European, I would not have signed this petition)
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/invoke-clause-61-of-magna-carta
The commitment in the declaration to principles of liberty and equality is one we can all share. However, for me,it falls short in a number of respects – it is reminding the Unionists that they are a minority in Ireland and that they have no right to opt out of the Irish nation, indeed the government to which they have given their allegiance is described as alien. To my mind, this provides no basis on which true reconciliation can be based. So, rather than saying that the situation would have much better if the spirit of the declaration had been adhered to, I would suggest that aspects of the thinking underpinning it are part of the problem.
It was made 100 years ago
Of course it would need revision now
But that does not stop it being a good start
And let’s also be clear: there is almost no nation without a minority
Completley agree. It’s an incredibly divisive document.
The section: “…differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past” reduced a massive section of its proclaimed ‘nation’ to misguided fools. This contradicts it’s earlier gesture of friendship to these wayward ‘family members’, and confirms they were actually enemies within and the republic was now officially at war with them.
Odder still is It’s demand for allegiance from all Irish people, surely you earn allegiance, not demand it. The rights offered within it are conditional on obedience too the handful of violent extremists with no mandate at all who signed it.
Their actions guaranteed the previously just theoretical partition of Ireland and ensured a legacy of bitterness & division lasted a century. To lionise their proclamation is wrong I feel.
Feel free to ignore all its qualities
I did not clain it was perfect
But there is much merit in its aspiration
Indeed, it goes back even further to the French Revolutionary principles that inspired the United Irishmen. Yet, time and again, for all the fine principles, the practical effect has been sectarian civil war. As a starting point, it really has been well tested down the centuries and has been found wanting.
My own view is that it will never provide a basis for reconciliation, it is innately flawed. The key issue is clearly one of identity and divided loyalties; therefore, it seems to me that it is folly for one side to say ‘we have decided your national identity, you have no choice in the matter, you have no right to give allegiance to an alien power, you have a false consciousness’ and expect that to create a meeting of minds.
I think we are on very dangerous ground, as history has shown, when state majorities seek to dictate (either positively or negatively) the national identity of religious or ethnic minorities.
It is surely a fundamental principle that individuals and groups should have the right to define their own identity, and for me that would be a better starting point because it is based on mutual acceptance of differing identities.
Richard, I have been a regular reader of this blog, and your published work, for many years now and admire its progressive content. This is the first time that I have put my head above the parapet. Best wishes and continued success.
Al
Thanks for your comments
Of course we should have religious freedom
It has taken time but I suspect quite strongly that Ireland could embrace that now
I am only too well aware of the harm that de Valera’s Catholic state caused
Richard
It strikes me that the people of Ireland have been bludgeoned with the same guilt trip that we have on the other side of the Irish Sea, namely, ‘the crisis was YOUR fault for borrowing loans YOU couldn’t repay’, rather than, ‘our banker friends lent too much to people they knew couldn’t repay and lent even more to lots of financial institutions who couldn’t repay despite paying small fortunes to executives to ensure said situation would never happen’.
I have to say that while I would not wish to detract from the Easter Rising celebrations, the scale and the publicity did make me wonder whether this was a classic propaganda technique in the same way that crisis-ridden governments often engage in overseas adventures (Argentina in the Falklands for example). For the truth is that Ireland’s financial system, like our own, is still riddled with bad debt – vast amounts of which have already been off loaded onto the public balance sheet; poverty and homelessness are spreading and thousands have left the country in search of work abroad.
I am proud to call the gentleman in the links below a friend – he’s the man who blew the whistle at Uni Credit just before the crisis hit the headlines. Needless to say, his honesty has not been rewarded. Indeed, the personal cost has been huge.
http://www.ianfraser.org/unicredit-and-irelands-dark-heart-of-finance/
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/11/jonathan-sugarman-versus-unicredit-an-update/
Society treats whistle blowers very badly indeed