RSF not involved in proposed 'Front' -- should
campaign for removal of test oath
Contrary
to press reports in the past week Republican Sinn
Féin was not invited to the recently postponed
meeting of various groupings in Toomebridge, Co
Antrim, nor has the organisation any intention of
attending such a meeting.
A
spokesperson for the proposed meeting who was named,
stated that Republican Sinn Féin had been
engaged in "remarkable cooperation [with such
groups] for the past five years". This is totally
untrue.
Further
he did not declare a proposed attitude to the 26-County
State which has been engaged in close collaboration
with British rule in Ireland since its foundation.
In the absence of a rejection of that state it must
be presumed that the proposed "Front"
will accept it, which is contrary to Republican
Sinn Féin's basic principles.
A
second spokesperson, who is anonymous, is quoted
as wanting "a republicanism which is open,
democratic and peaceful". By democratic do
they mean in a 32-County sense? Republican Sinn
Féin stands by the right of the Iris h people
acting as a unit, to determine their own future
with the British government gone from Ireland. We
do not concede the Unionist Veto.
This
second spokesperson appears to reject the right
of the Irish people to resist English rule here.
Republican Sinn Féin upholds that right.
The
ÉIRE NUA programme with its maximum devolution
of power and decision-making is much more democratic
than any other proposals put forward by the British
government or the political parties on either side
of the Border.
The proposed "Front" seems to be composed
of people who went varying lengths of the constitutional
road with either the Provisionals or the Officials.
They differ on basic principles and how can unity
emerge from people w ho cannot agree on basics?
They
propose to contest the local elections in the Six
Counties, nominations for which requires acceptance
of a political test oath. This precludes Republican
Sinn Féin from entering the contest.
The
"Front" would perform a useful service
to democracy if they joined in a united call to
remove this oath and campaigned for its abolition.
The failed Anti-Partition League has been mentioned.
Resurrecting it for a second time will lead nowhere
and will just cause confusion.
