Interview with Paul Cleary December 11, 2013Posted by irishelectionliterature in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far
With The Blades Friday and Saturday night gigs fast approaching….. Come Here to Me have posted a great interview with Paul Cleary
A recollection of the Dunnes Stores anti-apartheid picket line December 11, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
From Joe a recollection of the picket line
I spent a good number of afternoons on that picket line, mostly in 1985 if memory serves. I was working in a public service job in town. On Mondays and Wednesdays I would work till 1pm and then be off till 5pm and then work till 9pm. So me and a few others would head over to Henry St to join the picket.
By that stage, most of the actual strikers would only be on the picket line occasionally. It was manned haphazardly by supporters like myself.
My approach as I picketed was to try to speak to anyone who crossed it and say to them that there was a strike on against apartheid in South Africa. I remember one chap had already gone in through the door when I caught his attention. He came back to me and I said my line. He looked me in the eye and said “I support apartheid in South Africa”. He was a working class Dubliner in his twenties. Lesson: There is a latent potential support for racism and fascism among a section of the working class.
After a while a chap called Harry Owens got involved and organised the support picket better. We wanted to stop deliveries early in the morning so Harry gathered phone numbers and organised a rota for five o’clock in the morning pickets. I’d set my alarm for four and cycle into town. We’d block the entrance round the back of the shop while the milkman threw cartons of milk over us to the scabs inside.
I remember one afternoon an RTE reporter came up to me and said did I know anything about Gerry Adams joining the picket that day. I said that I didn’t but that if he did, I wouldn’t be with him. Gerry duly arrived with a few supporters and met with one of the strikers for a photo opportunity on the picket line. Myself and my friend observed from the doorway of Arnott’s across the street. (I hadn’t joined the WP at that stage but clearly my politics were pretty good!).
Another thing I remember was one day when Karen Gearon was on the picket and they spotted a couple of Roches Stores workers, with their name badges, crossing the line. The strikers made sure they noted down the names to give to the union – if I recall correctly, they thought that one of these picket-crossers was actually a shop steward in Roches!
The head of Mandate at the time (was it called Mandate then?) was a chap called John Mitchell. He was a left socialist (republican?) and he had a campaign called CAISP – Campaign for an all-Ireland Socialist Party. SWM and various other small grouplets were involved. Plus ca change. Anyway he got into trouble with his Union Executive for letting Provisional Sinn Féin use the union hall for public meetings. They told him not to do it again or if he was doing it to go through some procedure. He went ahead and did it anyway and they sacked him. I thought this was good (I would wouldn’t I) because it was an Executive, elected by the members, controlling their full-time official. Socialists would be in favour of that, no. Anyway next thing I get a call from Harry Owens asking me to come to a meeting of the Reinstate John Mitchell Support campaign or somesuch. I did not attend. He later did a pay-off deal with the union and I haven’t heard of him since.
Me I joined the WP, helped by the fact that my first cousin was standing for them as a local election candidate. I was active enough in the Party for about 5 years. Then I got married and had kids and the Party split and I took my chance to retire from activity.
Until I discovered the CLR and now I’m changing the world along with the rest of yis/us.
Smithwick December 11, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, Northern Ireland.
add a comment
There’s no doubt that the human aspect of the murder of RUC Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchananby the IRA in March 1989 comes home in the testimony given at the Smithwick Tribunal. June Breen’s account of having the chops on when news of the murder was relayed to her by her husband’s colleagues is a striking insight into the manner in which the banal nature of ordinary enough lives was obliterated, and tragically so, by the conflict.
As well as confirming long-held suspicions of the IRA mole in Dundalk Garda station, Judge Peter Smithwick said there was collusion in the killings but was unable to point the finger at an individual and said he suspects there could have been another person passing information to the IRA.
Conor Brady had a particularly good take on that in the Irish Times over the weekend noting that:
…it is a far step from [Garda corruption] to participation in the murders of fellow police officers, albeit in a different jurisdiction.
That last part of the sentence brought me up short, and no doubt others as well. But the general point is clear.
And he continues:
The report concludes that “the passing of information by a member of an Garda Sнochбna was the trigger” (23.2.5) for the ambush operation in which Chief Supt Breen and Supt Buchanan were murdered. This conclusion would appear to be built upon a structure of deduction rather than any hard evidence.
Judge Smithwick acknowledges the lack of any direct evidence. “There is no record of a phone call, no traceable payment, no smoking gun.” (23.1.2). And when he considers the possible involvement of the gardaн who were examined by the tribunal, he rules each of them out.
Isn’t this very strange? The finding is there but as Brady notes it is not based on hard evidence.
Of former Det Sgt Owen Corrigan, he says: “While there is some evidence that Mr Corrigan passed information to the Provisional IRA, I am not satisfied that the evidence is of sufficient substance and weight to establish that Mr Corrigan did in fact collude in the fatal shootings of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan.” (23.2.11).
We are left with the possibility that some unknown garda notified the IRA of the RUC officers’ visit. This requires one to conclude (as the judge does) that the IRA’s claim to have mounted the ambush on the basis of its own surveillance and intelligence is false. But notwithstanding Gerry Adams’s maladroit comments about the murdered officers’ approach to their security, it should be borne in mind that in recent years IRA statements about past operational matters have been generally accurate.
If that conclusion is curious, albeit persuasive, there’s an simply astounding take on all this by Stephen Collins in the Times too. He argues that:
The Garda and the Army generally did their best to block the porous Border but the resistance by the courts and a broad swathe of political opinion to the introduction of normal extradition procedures between Ireland and the United Kingdom for almost two decades facilitated the continuation of murder.
Even when extradition was introduced in the late 1980s, in the aftermath of the Anglo Irish Agreement, it took an inordinately long time for the system to become effective.
The IRA clearly had sympathisers at all levels of society in the Republic, otherwise it could not have continued to wreak havoc for so long. The full story about that has yet to be told.
Many of us here reading this would have been – and many will still be – by any definition far from sympathisers to the IRA and yet will have found that reading remarkably partial. For some of us – despite profound criticism of the armed struggle – there were very genuine concerns about the nature of policing, the administration of justice and the state itself as it functioned North of the border. And it’s not as if Collins is unaware of such matters, in the very same piece he notes:
Many aspects of the Troubles, including the involvement of the British state in atrocities such as Bloody Sunday and collusion with loyalist paramilitaries have been explored in official inquiries. The Smithwick report has now put the spotlight on the State’s response south of the Border.
But it is as if there is a gap between that knowledge and an understanding of why the concept of ‘normal’ policing was near enough impossible in the 1980s.
That’s not to say that there was no collusion at various levels, but it appears more generally to have been as Gerry Moriarty writes in the Irish Times ‘localised… and at a low-ranking level’. It seems in that respect strikingly different in character to some of the events that occurred north of the border.
That said Moriarty’s assessment is telling.
In terms of fallout it seems unlikely that there will be a major negative political dimension to the Smithwick report.
The judge found there was Garda collusion but that it was localised and, it seems, at a low-ranking level. Such corruption is hard to come to terms with, but will hardly damage British-Irish or North-South relations.
Given the renewed focus on the MRF – and the levels of collusion noted earlier in relation to the North – it would seem that that’s extremely unlikely, but as has been noted elsewhere that renewed focus has been given remarkably little attention in this state in the past week or so.
Finally there’s a telling aspect to Collins piece, or a couple of telling aspects, not least that he is sharply against a Truth and Reconciliation process, but also the following:
Senator Paul Coghlan of Fine Gael has suggested that the best response to the Smithwick report would be for the Garda and the PSNI to set up joint offices along the Border to combat crime such as diesel laundering.
In his report Judge Peter Smithwick called for procedures to be put in place to allow for the structured and regular exchange of information and intelligence between the two forces. Such an initiative would be a small sign that we have learned something from the past.
Good idea re joint Garda/PSNI offices, though perhaps I’m being overly-cynical, but I wonder though what the response of Unionism would be to such an initiative? Would they see it as a sign of the recognition of partition or… as seems more likely, more than an hint of an increasingly shared future. It reminds me in a way of the idea that Conor Cruise O’Brien had, which saw him precipitously depart from the UK Unionist Party, of a united Ireland within which Ulster (six county, not nine-county, variant) would have an home rule set up with the retention of the RUC, Stormont re-instated and ironically a spin on the old Éire Nua line (not quite, but close enough), all in order to ‘thwart SF’ and PIRA. There’s a point during some political travels where you wind up meeting yourself coming the other way.
What you want to say… Open Thread, 11th December 2013 December 11, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
As always, following on Dr. X’s suggestion, it’s all yours, “announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose”, feel free.
The tyranny of working life December 10, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Economy, The Left.
Actually, given that privatisation is mentioned this morning, Nick Cohen had an useful piece two weeks back in the Observer, albeit one that concealed some truths within a thicket of text about the far left. Riffing on the allegations that a group that had once been Maoist had devolved into essentially a cult, he took a jaundiced look at the further left in its entirety, noting that cult like behaviours were exhibited by many formations. That is true, but the totalising nature of most cults is generally speaking absent from even the most enthusiastic far left parties. There are groups that operate as if they are under the cosh of the law of the bourgeois state, but those tend to be the exception than the rule. Sure, there are irritating affectations (it’s near trivial, but the use of first names and initials by the UK SWP in their bulletins is enjoyably daft given that a moments perusal of the web will, should the mood take you, allow you an insight into how those writing most probably are. Now truth is I don’t care much about Jane D in Kilbride or Joe B in Ashtead, but an half effective pseudonym is arguably worse than none at all). But we’ve all known enough ex-members of formations near and far to testify to the fact that leaving them is significantly easier than, say even some fairly prominent and supposedly close enough mainstream religious groups.
In any case to read that ‘the British Communist party demanded absolute intellectual conformity’, I presume he’s talking about the CPGB, isn’t a revelation and nor does it make for a cult. The WRP may well have wanted ‘absolute submission’, and highly unpleasant it was too – and yes, arguably that was a cult, but the SWP… you know, again we all know sufficient ex-members to know that’s not quite the entirety of the experience. I knew people who had a tangential involvement in the CPI (M-L), who on one occasion after the comrades had arrived one time too many in their sitting room to deliver a stern lecture on the iniquities of the British state calmly pointed out that they’d had enough and would they leave – permanently. The comrades retreated and had the good grace (and sense) not to darken the door again.
My time in the WP didn’t convince me they were cult-like. Sure, you could spend your life going to meetings, if the mood took you, but rather like the more general experience of same, there are those who do and most who don’t. There are parties, and they tend to be smaller, who demand significantly more, but I wonder if in the contemporary period a lot of that is being diluted in changing societal dynamics.
Anyhow, loath them while I do, I’m deeply unconvinced that ‘The UK Independence party meanwhile is looking like a right-wing version of a Marxist sect. Nigel Farage’s cult of the personality allows no other politician to compete with the supreme leader and no Ukip official to talk back to him’. It doesn’t sound much fun, but it’s hardly unique in human enterprises or projects.
Which is where we flip to part two of the argument and a more convincing one by far, though still a stretch. He argues that contemporary capitalism offers cult-like behaviours.
With Britain hobbling in to 2014 like a battered beggar, we should accept that corporations can be as demented and dictatorial as any millenarian movement. People resist the comparison because businesses seem such modest enterprises. The godly persecuted heretics and apostates and the communists punished all dissent because they believed the kingdom of God or workers’ paradise could be theirs if believers followed the one true course.
It’s still a stretch. But let’s not get hung up on the ‘c’ word. Let’s just, as Cohen much more persuasively argues continue to the following:
The nearest you are likely to come to experiencing life in a dictatorship is at work. Unless you are fortunate, you will discover that the management is the source of all ideas and all power. Executives will have privileges that bear no more relation to real achievement than the fat and ugly cult leader’s expectation of sex. In 2012, the median pay for CEOs in the USA was $14.4m, the average salary for employees $45,230. In Britain, the High Pay Commission found that the average annual bonus for FTSE 300 directors had increased by 187% in 10 years even though the average year-end share price had gone down by 71%.
And he notes, I think accurately:
Above all, whether you are in the public or the private sector, John Lewis or Barclays Bank, you will learn that if you challenge authority you will lose the chance of promotion and if you challenge it in public, you will lose your job. To prosper in the workplace, as in the dictatorship, you must tell leaders what they want to hear.
I’ve mentioned something along these lines before, that given the centrality of the workplace to our lives it is remarkable how under analysed it actually is, and how dictatorial it can be. Democratic structures simply aren’t extant there. And that’s a remarkable omission in societies where democracy is reified, in word if not in deed.
And Cohen accepts there are problems:
I do not doubt that, if required, the courts will deliver justice to the alleged victims of the Brixton Maoists. Justice is harder to find elsewhere. It is not merely that the banking scandals have not led to one prosecution. With the honourable exception of the coalition’s push to protect NHS whistleblowers, there has been no interest in making public and private hierarchies less cultish. The left is not saying loudly enough that we need worker directors on all boards as a non-negotiable minimum. The right does not admit that the old way of doing business failed.
That may be true that the left is not doing enough, but in fairness it was Cohen himself who in his ‘What’s Left?’ book on the far left argued that there’s actually little further leftward movement possible in contemporary societies. Perhaps the economic crisis has cured him of that delusion. Certainly worker directors is absolutely a minimum as a precursor to much more wholesale change because even the presence of a worker director is not per se going to alter the nature of the working place for most workers in the slightest. How about a complete rebalancing with half of board made up of workers representatives? Too much, too soon? Not enough I’d say.
And I’m a bit dubious about the following:
In these dismal circumstances, you must look after yourself. If you work in an organisation where you cannot challenge your superiors without fear of the consequences, get out. Stay and you will become a paranoid flatterer. You will suffer all the psychological consequences of living a frightened life in a playground run by strutting bullies.
In societies with significant to massive levels of unemployment that seems a little over optimistic. As always more structured and organised and yes, collective, means are necessary. Join a union, demand better of employers and fellow workers and politicians and representatives.
After Privatisation December 10, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in British Politics, Culture, Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.
Ian Jack in the Guardian on Saturday has a thought-provoking article on the nature of privatisation, how far it can go and just how large the gap between the period before the arrival of Margaret Thatcher and now actually is.
It is of particular interest given that we were just discussing nationalisation as an aspect of social democratic programmes in the last day or two, and it points perhaps to just how much has been lost and how much was achievable by the left even under mildly progressive governments. Or to put it another way it points to how much the space within which the left can operate and expand the project has been constrained in the last three and a half decades – which of course was the point of the exercise – and how much has been forgotten.
Jack notes that it was Harold Macmillan who introduced the phrase ‘selling the family silver’ in relation to the processes of privatisation, and not in a complimentary fashion, though he later disowned it.
But it is when Jack gets into the detail that the differences between now and then come into sharp focus:
At the time of Macmillan’s speech, privatisation had hardly begun. British Rail’s ferries and hotels were the first to go (how strange it now seems that the best hotels in almost every city outside London were owned and run – usually well – by public servants in the most literal sense). But British Telecom, British Steel, British Airways, British Shipbuilders and Rolls-Royce – all of them listed as targets in the Tories’ 1983 manifesto – had still to complete their journey from the public sector, and the big privatisations that that would affect every household had yet to come. Gas, water, electricity: people puzzled as to how the same stuff flowing through the same pipes and wires could be owned by different companies, and yet somehow it became so in the name of competition. Then came the British Airports Authority and British Rail and large chunks of the Ministry of Defence, while many public institutions such as local authorities and the NHS outsourced much of their activity and shrank sometimes to the role of regulator. Nigel Lawson triumphantly announced “the birth of people’s capitalism”, but many private companies sold out to foreign ownership; others were taken over by private equiteers; others again subsumed into octopus-like businesses such as Serco and G4S, which picked up the contracts for outsourced work ranging from Royal Navy tugboats to nursing assistants.
There are issues, obvious one’s in relation to some of those companies. Rolls-Royce springs to mind, although it was not simply a car manufacturer. The Concorde project from earlier in the 1960s and 1970s likewise. The idea of state funding to ensure Phil Collins et al made it to the United States in jig time was problematic, to put it mildly. But the sheer scope of nationalisation is demonstrated by this list.
And why not. Why shouldn’t the state run hotels or ferries? I’ve always been puzzled too by the idea that a state-owned airline was somehow odd. Semi-state bodies charged with doing so seems eminently sensible in a broad range of areas and with a better understanding of market conditions and so forth what reason is there that such bodies couldn’t turn a penny for the state?
The bizarre nature of attempting to marketise areas, such as public utilities where there was no clear logic to same is underlined by Jack. This wasn’t competition but the pretence of same, and we’ve seen examples of that much closer to home, and one suspects will continue to see more. The chimera of ‘people’s capitalism’ likewise.
Jack offers an excellent quote to sum up these processes:
The words of the novelist and reporter James Meek ring ever truer. “The commodity that makes water and roads and airports valuable to an investor, foreign or otherwise, is the people who have no choice but to use them,” Meek wrote last year in the London Review of Books. “We have no choice but to pay the price the toll keepers charge. We are a human revenue stream; we are being made tenants in our own land, defined by the string of private fees we pay to exist here.”
What is most evident is that we, the citizenry, are coerced into transactional relationships in a myriad of areas – and that often due to an inability of the private sector to live up to its own rhetoric that of necessity means that many are shut out of those relationships in whole or part.
It’s darkly entertaining though to read Jack’s closing thoughts.
But why not take it further and outsource the air force, the army and the navy? Mercenaries from poorer countries would be cheaper, accepting even worse rates of pay than the average British infantryman. Why not outsource the police, given that prison warders are already privatised? Why not outsource the government? It has cut so many parts from itself that it does no more than bleed on its stumps.
Clearly he’s unacquainted with the libertarian right and those who cleave to similar paths albeit using less overt rhetoric. The current Tory project is ever more nakedly about constraining the size and shape of the state, and state provision, in a manner which, in part due to the thinness of the state in the period since Thatcherism, is vastly more easy than it was in 1979 onwards.
That said he does offer the idea of outsourcing the British political class itself, say to the Finns… yeah, that’s not the worst idea.
add a comment
Much to his surprise a friends father told him at the weekend how after his speech in the Mansion House in Dublin on the 1st July 1990, Nelson Mandela left his speech with some handwritten notes on it, on the podium……….
Its a fairly nifty thing to have. It was kindly scanned and sent on to me this morning.
Interesting to see the changes made by Mandela such as The mention of the Irish Soccer team and the ‘solidarity with our struggle’.
you’ll have to click on the image to enlarge….
Party polls… December 9, 2013Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics, The Left.
Reading the SBP yesterday, there was a snippet in their back page somewhat flippant ‘Last Post’ column that was interesting. Discussing the European Elections it suggested that ‘the Labour Party has conducted a private poll on its chances of retaining the three Euro seats it won in 2009′. Feels like another world, doesn’t it, 2009?
Anyhow, the SBP report continued with the following, that ‘the results, one hears, were not entirely encouraging. The problem is that one of its MEPs – Nessa Childers – has left the party following an unfortunate sundering of relations. The other two… were not elected in the first place, but rather were replacements when the elected MEPs stood down’. And it argues that their impact on the ‘public’s imagination’ has been low.
It concludes by suggesting that ‘the real danger for Labour is that it will lose them all’.
That all has a ring of truth, though we’ll see. Six or so months yet to go until the European Elections. But more broadly on party polling, presumably all the larger parties are out doing this at this point in the electoral cycle. I often wonder what particular value they have, though something is perhaps better than nothing. Any evidence of other parties conducting such polls? And here’s a question, has anyone ever actually been approached to participate in such a poll either in person or by telephone?
Labour & Dignity – James Connolly in America Exhibition December 9, 2013Posted by Garibaldy in History.
1 comment so far
Got sent the following announcement that ought to be of interest to people here.
Trinity’s Long Room Hub is hosting an exhibition by New York University’s Glucksman Ireland House, Labour and Dignity – James Connolly in America.
The exhibition explores the time that James Connolly, one of Ireland’s
national icons, spent in the United States where he witnessed the successes
and failures of labor radicalism and unionization, and of working class
conditions resulting from unregulated corporate expansion.
Despite major advances made by Irish labor activists in the 19th century,
Connolly found that employers still had the advantage when he arrived in
America in 1902. Over the next eight years, he was among an influential
second generation of Irish American leaders in the United States who
rallied immigrants from all over Europe to press for the dignity of labor.
Turning homeward in 1910, he insisted that the fight for Irish nationalism
was inseparable from the battle for the rights of all workers, in factories
as well as on farms.
Connolly’s experiences in the US influenced his actions during the Dublin
Lockout of 1913, which was part of a larger transatlantic effort to secure
the rights of the working class in the years before World War I.
The ‘Labor & Dignity’ exhibition is Glucksman Ireland House’s first
contribution to Ireland’s Decade of Commemorations, which was announced in
2012 by the Taoiseach, Mr. Enda Kenny. It is also part of a year-long
series of special academic initiatives to mark the twentieth anniversary of
Glucksman Ireland House, established as the Center for Irish and Irish
American Studies at New York University in 1993.
Professor Marion R. Casey, a faculty member at Glucksman Ireland House, and
Daphne Dyer Wolf, a PhD candidate in History and Culture at Drew
University, curated the exhibition, which was designed by Hilary J. Sweeney.
*The Trinity Long Room Hub will host the exhibition until February 2014. It
is free and open to the public between 9am and 6pm Monday to Friday.
The exhibition brochure can be downloaded here
Left Archive: Mining and Energy – The Sinn Féin Policy, Provisional Sinn Féin, 1974 December 9, 2013Posted by leftarchivist in Irish Left Online Document Archive, Sinn Féin, Uncategorized.
add a comment
To download the above file please click on the following link: SF MINING
This well presented document, issued by Provisional Sinn Féin in 1974, attempts to engage with the area of Mining and Energy. What is notable about it is that it is one a broad range of policy materials issued by PSF during this period on a number of issues, many of which are being posted to the Archive in the New Year. This somewhat blunts the impression that PSF was focused on independence and unity to the exclusion of all else. However it is fair to say that, naturally, Sinn Féin positioned the issue of Mining and Energy in the context of national independence.
The introduction notes:
Because the Republican Movement believes that the irish people are on the verge of victoy in the age-old struggle for national liberation it has shown an increasing awareness of the necessity to initiate, promote and develop political policies which can be put into action as soon as Britain declares her intention to get out of our country. The partitionist settlement of 1921, exposed as the betrayal Republicans have always held it rob e, is crumbling before the inspiration of a New Ireland.
The SF Éire Nua document, first published in January 1971 (some 16,000 copies have been sold to date) outlined 10 fundamental feature so the Republican Social and Economic Programme. it also contained detailed policies for specific sectors in chapters dealing with Finance, Education, Industry, Agriculture, etc., outlining not only what an independent Irish government could do in the New Ireland but also setting out the specific measures which could be taken here and now to ensure that the fabric of Irish life would remain as healthy and intact as possible under the present colonial and neo-colonial conditions that prevail in the partitioned states North and South.
It argues that since the publication of Éire Nua the party has expanded policy in a variety of fields. It also suggests that:
It is necessary however, to point out form the beginning that SF policy always distinguishes between what can be achieved within the limitations of the present governmental structure of this island, and the vigorous revolutionary policies which Republicans would advocate in a free New Ireland.
Interestingly the document starts by identifying ‘the question of ownership and exploitation [of Irish natural resources] in the interests of the Irish people. And it argues that the Proclamation of the Irish Republic in 1916 by asserting the “right of the people to the ownership of Ireland” in tandem with the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil Éireann, 1919 which declared:
…the nation’s sovereignty extends not only to all men and women of the nation, but to all its material possessions; the nation’s soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing processes within the nation and with Pearse we re-affirm that all rights to private property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare’.
To this end the document argues that:
Sinn Féin stands not merely for the complete overthrow of English rule in Ireland but also for the setting up of a Democratic Socialist Republic. WE have outlined clearly what form this federated Republic would take in our Éire Nua programme and have incorporated the right of the Irish people to the natural resources of the country in the first point summary thus: “The wealth of Ireland belongs to the people of Ireland is theirs to be exploited and developed in their interests”.
It continues that ‘we reject “Western” liberal capitalism and the consumer society on one hand and the state capitalism of the “Eastern” bloc on the other. Our aim is to outline an alternative third way of life based on Irish traditions and values and adapted to the geographic and historic situation we find ourselves’.
And it outlines one caveat:
We also feel that what may suit in one particular sector of the economy, or even in one region of a New Ireland may not necessarily be the best solution for another. Thus while we emphasise the growth of co-operatives in agriculture and fishing matters, we advocate state management of most major sectors of the economy and the financial and banking institutions. Some industries lend themselves to independent ownerships, others to workers control, others still to development as state corporations. But the underlying principle in each case is that the rights, welfare and prosperity of the ordinary Irish citizen are paramount and have to be protected.
It argues that in the case of mining ‘because it concerns a fundamental natural resource – a national resource not owned by anybody until it is discovered and exploited… is quite unique and needs to be considered as such. For this reason we feel that the question of compensation, which would arise say if some land were to be nationalised for whatever purpose, does not apply’.
And it further argues for the establishment of the equivalent of a state Bord na Móna for mining exploration and research, which would also coordinate mining and energy development in the country and to maintain strict control on any multi-national companies that would be interested in developing any particular sectors of the wealth.
It also argues that:
In this respect an attitude similar to the present policy of Norway would be adopted. Thus while the irish tax rate on profits form exploration at about 50% is rather similar to the profits tax imposed in Norway, Sinn Féin would also insist, as Norway does, that the state company have a share in the development and that a permanent royalty be paid where a successful strike was made.
Worth noting the emphasis on wind and tidal energy to generate electricity and ‘an intensification of development on our peat-lands’.