Sir, – Prof Ronan Fanning’s lucid opinion piece (“Why should we mark 100 years since the Rising?”, Opinion & Analysis, January 3rd) reminds me of an exchange of correspondence which I had with the late Dr Garret FitzGerald in the Letters column of this newspaper in 2006, on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the Rising. We discussed precisely the point that Prof Fanning has highlighted, viz, that in Dr FitzGerald’s opinion, we got out from under the clutches of the British proto-welfare state just in time, else we would have been seduced by such as a proper health service, social welfare provision, decent public infrastructure, investment in education, mitigation of clerical domination, and so forth.
It brings into focus the fundamental question as to what the purpose of independence was – and, indeed, is. If it was to achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number, then it was, by virtually any measure, a spectacular failure. Ireland was amongst the top European nations in terms of relative prosperity in the early 1900s. Half a century later, despite avoiding direct involvement in the second World War, we had slipped badly back relative to other countries. Again, if the purpose of independence was to achieve political “freedom” and the dawning of a new polity, then it could be argued that we merely swapped a British-run centralised Dublin Castle administration for an even more centralised Irish-run one – one which, moreover, enthusiastically used the machinery of the previous regime.
Perhaps we rather enjoyed the warm glow of being screwed by native politicians rather than by foreign ones.
Our so-called sovereignty was always, and still is, an illusion. As soon as we achieved it, we began surrendering it. A most important illustration of this was the failure to establish our own independent currency policy until 1979, when the link with sterling was broken. We then promptly exchanged oversight by the treasury in London for that by our gallant allies in Europe. A cultural and social abjection to Rome from the 1920s was followed by a similar subservience to the US and colonisation by its multinationals.
Latterly, we have become no more than a province of the EU and the ECB, not Ireland “secure in its perception of its sovereignty”, as Prof Fanning claims, and bailouts that Dr FitzGerald seemed to think would have subverted our pure desire for “freedom” in the first place. – Yours, etc,
IAN d’ALTON,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Prof Ronan Fanning’s piece on the centenary of 1916 is shot through with contradictions. He begins by complaining about the “self-indulgent whatiffery” of the commemoration last year of the centenary of the Home Rule Bill and asserts that recognising the historical reality of the violence that accompanied the Irish revolution is not to approve of it. True enough, but he then seeks to justify that violence, citing Dr Garret FitzGerald’s argument that without it Ireland would not have become sovereign and independent as soon as it did and might well have ended up like Northern Ireland or rejected early membership of the EU. If that is not “whatiffery” then I don’t know what is.
The problem is that not everyone agrees – nor did they at the time – with the violent secessionism that led to Irish independence or that its consequences were as benign as Prof Fanning suggests. There are plenty of people who believe, as I do, that there was a peaceful, democratic and constitutional alternative in 1916, just as there was in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles of the 1960s-1990s.
Unlike Prof Fanning, the Irish Government seems intent on an even-handed commemoration of 1916 that will recognise and respect different points of view. This is not the “politically correct mania for inclusiveness” derided by Prof Fanning but essential for the pluralistic society that is contemporary Ireland. – Yours, etc,
Prof GEOFFREY
ROBERTS,
School of History,
University College Cork.