Mick Clifford: We must take our Tricolour back from those who sow hate and intolerance
Last Saturday in Cork, there was a rally organised by far-right activists or, as they might style themselves, nationalists. Their agenda, to the extent that they have one, is focused on making Ireland poor again.
They apparently want the country to revert to a time when nobody would come near the place because it was, as Gay Byrne once noted, banjaxed.
The defining image of their march was the prominence of the Tricolour in various forms. These people were claiming to represent the State, its origins, and all that has flowed from it.
Last Saturday's rally in Cork was organised by far-right activists — or, as they might style themselves, nationalists — who apparently want the country to revert to a time when nobody would come near the place. Picture: Larry Cummins
Ahead of the march, a few lads were selling cheap Tricolours. The plan was obviously to display as much green, white, and orange as possible, identifying marchers with some mystical notion of what the flag might represent.
An identical scenario was played out last month ahead of a march organised by the same elements in Dublin. They started at the Garden of Remembrance, and marched down O'Connell St, past the GPO, the cradle of the nation, waving the national flag as if they possess a direct political lineage to the men and women of 1916, who fought and died for an inclusive Republic.
The anti-immigration protest in Dublin on April 26 was again cloaked in the Tricolour as if the rally represented the ideals of the men and women who died for Irish freedom in 1916. Picture: Conor Ó Mearáin/PA
Together, these two marches, or shows of strength as the organisers might have it, demonstrate the extent to which the Tricolour has once again been misappropriated. For instance,
Eoin English's report in Thursday's Irish Examiner about threats made to bar staff in the wake of last Saturday's march, referred to the prominence of the flags.
Bar owner Benny McCabe told Eoin that he had left instructions that 'nobody would be refused for carrying an Irish flag'. Entirely correctly, the businessman assumed the Tricolour was now an integral part of the paraphernalia attaching to these elements.
Our flag linked to exclusion and hate
It was obvious at the general election last November: As one commentator noted, the places that the Tricolour was flown prominently during the 2020 election tended to be strongholds of Sinn Féin. But at the 2024 election, the flying of the flag suggested allegiance to the new form of nationalism current, that of intolerance, exclusion, and hate, with particular emphasis on despising immigrants.
At the moment, the display of the Tricolour outside a home, a vehicle, or other property is to invite identification with far-right elements. Such an identification may well be mistaken.
An independent-minded person, proud of their nation's record in helping the world's most downtrodden, or acting as agents of peace, may well decide to plant the national flag in their front garden. That is an act of a strong and independent mind.
But unless the flag-bearer is willing to sit out in the garden and explain in detail to passers-by the premise for the display, an assumption will be made that they subscribe to the ugly strain of nationalism.
We've been here before
Of course, we have been here before. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, another ugly form of nationalism had somehow misappropriated the flag.
At that time, it was associated with the Provisional IRA and its political wing. By extension, and by deed, this pitched the flag as a prop in a campaign of violence designed to terrorise Protestants into a United Ireland.
Thomas Francis Meagher first raised the Tricolour in Waterford in 1848, the green white and orange signifying peace between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Image from 'Timeless Colours: Waterford' by Ian Hannigan
Just as today's flag-carriers attempt to dehumanise children through the colour of their skin, so the Provos did likewise with all victims of its indiscriminate bombing, all targets of ethnic cleansing along the border. While they attempted to portray their nationalism as a struggle, in reality it subscribed to the standard ugly form of exclusion.
Ironically, the Tricolour would have been a legitimate standard for those in the North, and across the island, who aspired to peacefully achieving a United Ireland.
It was first flown in 1848 by Thomas Francis Meagher, who stated that the white was to signify a truce between Catholics and Protestants with the hope they can live together. That is an entirely legitimate aspiration and one that still persists today across the political spectrum.
Republic of Ireland fans at the 1990 World Cup. The Tricolour was waved with joy and pride throughout Italia '90 at matches and back at home in Ireland. Picture: Billy Stickland/Inpho
The 1990 World Cup was seen by many as the time when the flag began to come back to the people of Ireland as a whole.
Roddy Doyle, who set his best-selling novel The Van in that frenzied summer of Italia '90, was of this opinion when reflecting on the time during the 30th anniversary.
'It was the best of the luck that I had when I was writing the book that the World Cup took off and indeed the Provos owned the flag for a while but then in 1990 when people waved it to celebrate, that was big, and I think The Van captures that quite well,' he said.
Team Ireland, led by flagbearers Shane Lowry and Sarah Lavin, taking part in the Paris Olympics opening ceremony last year. Picture: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile
By the turn of the century, the flag was well and truly reclaimed. Sure, Sinn Féin was prone to roll it out for any bunfight, but their ostensible allegiance to peaceful means meant it wasn't to be sullied any more.
All the way up to the last five years, the Tricolour was, to a large extent, back where it belonged. Even when Conor McGregor was in the early straits of his career it was possible to feel — go on, admit it — a sting of pride when he wrapped the flag around himself.
The Irish women's relay team, Sophie Becker, Phil Healy, Rhasidat Adeleke, and Sharlene Mawdsley celebrate winning silver in the women's 4x400m relay final at the 2024 European Athletics Championships in Rome. Picture: Sam Barnes/Sportsfile
Today, the sight of the man who would be president draped in the flag would be enough to make you want to jump up and declare 'not in my name'.
That's where the national symbol resides now and its misappropriation is being perpetrated in an organised fashion. Those who have attached it to their agenda of hate are not representative of any coherent section of society.
Ireland's Sarah Healy jumps for joy with the Tricolour as she celebrates winning gold in the women's 800m final at the European Athletics Indoor Championships 2025 in the Netherlands. Picture: Sam Barnes/Sportsfile
At the last general election, none of their ilk were elected to the Dáil. Only a handful of councillors who march under the broad standard were elected to districts across the State last year. So, in any court of public opinion, they might well be indicted for misappropriation of a national symbol.
It isn't totally lost. Of course, it will continue to be flown at official events and at Irish soccer matches in particular.
Troops marching along O'Connell St during the Easter Rising centenary commemoration in Dublin in 2016. The Tricolour was at half mast throughout until The Last Post, when it was raised. File picture: Maxwell's
There are plenty of occasions, not least during Amhrán na bhFiann during All-Ireland Final day, when turning to the flag can still induce a sense of pride in what we like to think of as the positives aspects of being Irish.
There is also the possibility that it might be serving through its final years as the national flag.
Abby and Robyn Ryan from Midleton in the Spike Island museum in Cork Harbour with an iconic photo of the Tricolour being raised over the island for the first time in 1938 after the 'Treaty port' was handed over to Ireland by British. Picture: Dan Linehan
Should the project of uniting the island as one political entity reach fruition, the various symbols will be up for grabs, with the Tricolour most likely topping the agenda.
In theory, the Tricolour would be the perfect flag of a United Ireland in terms of its original design and interpretation. But it has been through so much since, misappropriated in so many ways, it's unlikely that those who associate it with killing during the Troubles would be happy to salute it.
In the meantime, while it remains the State's national flag, it would be nice to have it back.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
31 minutes ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
Sunday World
2 hours ago
- Sunday World
Ex-Provo says he's proud IRA chiefs asked him to tell world their war was over
Séanna Walsh became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. The former Provo who told the world the IRA's war was over has revealed it remains one of the proudest moments of his life – but he had to get his daughters' approval first. Séanna Walsh spoke to the Sunday World on the week of the 20th anniversary of the jaw-dropping statement that declared an end to the IRA's violent campaign which saw them murder more than 1,700 people. On July 28, 2005, Séanna became the first IRA man for decades to stand in front of a camera and talk on behalf of the organisation without a mask. In a DVD that was distributed all over the world, he said the terrorist group was laying down its arms and was committing to a new peaceful strategy of achieving its goal of a united Ireland. Not everyone believed them but 20 years on only the most diehard unionist would argue that the IRA still exists as a violent force. Seanna Walsh, announces that IRA leadership has formally ordered an end to its armed campaign in 2005. Séanna (68) reveals this week why he thinks he was chosen to deliver that message, how he had check it was okay with his family first and how he feels about it 20 years later. While a number of ceasefires had been announced and collapsed since 1994, the 2005 statement saw the start of the decommissioning of weapons. The IRA statement delivered by Séanna said that members had been instructed to use exclusively peaceful means and not to engage in any other activities whatsoever. 'I had to be unmasked,' says Séanna – now a Sinn Féin Belfast city councillor – told the Sunday World. 'It had to be that way because we were doing something different. 'It was the defining moment of my life as a republican and I'm very proud of the fact the IRA leadership asked me to be the person to read the statement. 'I wasn't wearing a mask because we had to move away from that but I wasn't worried because I was quite convinced the days of the armed conflict were over. Séanna Walsh reflects on delivering historic IRA statement 20 years on News in 90 Seconds, Friday August 1 'It was made in the grounds of the Roddy's (Roddy McCorley's Club) and there's a museum there today and you can push the button and play the video and actually there's a recording of me reading the statement in English but also in Irish.' Walsh was a 48-year-old father-of-three when he made the statement which lasted just over four minutes and was filmed in the grounds of the west Belfast club. By then he'd already been in jail three times for his role in violent republicanism – in fact by the time he was released in 1998 he'd spent more time behind bars than out – and his track record was one of the reasons he believes he was chosen to read out the statement. 'I didn't ask them why I was chosen,' says Walsh. 'I was approached by an IRA comrade and that's as much as I can say. I suppose it's because I was confident enough to do it. 'I think they asked me because of the fact I'd served time in the Cages (Long Kesh), where I first met Bobby Sands, and where I shared a cell with him and we became very close friends. 'Then during the hunger strike period I was back in the H-Blocks and suffered the abuse of the blanket protest and was then in charge of the H-Blocks after Bik McFarlane stood down. 'On being released I went back to the struggle and was recaptured a third time and sentenced to 22 years the third time and was finally released in 1998. 'When I was asked would I be prepared to be the one to read the statement to camera and this would go out globally, I had to take a step back and I told them I'll have to think about this because I have three daughters, two of which were teens and the other was only a child. 'I needed to sit down and go through it all with my family – my wife is a long-standing republican in her own right and shared a cell in jail in Armagh with Mairéad Farrell for a number of years. 'So my wife was okay with it and the girls were absolutely supportive – the one thing I was most concerned about was the way that stuff like this can impact on their opportunities to travel and them being at that age. 'So I sat down with them and talked it over with them and I came back and said 'yes I'll do it'. I was a bit concerned about putting myself above the parapet and making myself a target of abuse because we were putting it up to the establishment in a way we hadn't really done before.' For the record, Walsh was jailed for terrorist offences including robbing banks, having a rifle and being caught with explosives but he sticks by the controversial claim that there was 'no alternative'. But he says the growth of Sinn Féin in the Republic actually pushed the IRA closer to a ceasefire as they found Dublin a colder house than before. 'Nationalists and certainly republicans felt there was no alternative to armed struggle but when republicans were convinced that there was a viable alternative to ending British government interference in this part of Ireland without recourse to armed struggle, they jumped at it with both hands and grasped it,' he says. 'To talk about 2005 you really have to talk about the statement Gerry Adams made in April where he talks about the time is now right for the IRA to leave the stage. 'That triggered a whole period of consultation across the republican family... it was time for the IRA to leave the stage because it was leading to excuses on the part of other people, the people in opposition to ourselves. 'When you look back in the years when Sinn Féin was a political party and their strength lay in the North, the Dublin government were a lot less hostile after the IRA ceasefire but Sinn Féin's strength was growing in the south and they were becoming, as far as they were concerned, a threat politically to the southern establishment and that's when things started becoming problematic with the Dublin government.' He says the archives will show that neither unionism nor the British government believed his statement was completely genuine. 'If you look back at the archives the British downplayed it, the unionists totally poo-pooed it and even then later in the year when you had the statement from De Chastelain (chairman of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning), that he was satisfied guns had been put beyond use you still had this scepticism in unionism that didn't believe it.' Last weekend, Séanna took part in a discussion about his historic statement along with Gerry Adams, chaired by Mairéad Farrell TD – niece of IRA member Mairéad who was shot dead in Gibraltar – in Belfast's Balmoral Hotel. Speaking before the event, Gerry Adams voiced regret that the statement of 2005 took so long to come, suggesting the UK government was focused on 'defeating republicanism'. He said: 'It took decades and one of my regrets is that it took so long. In my humble opinion it took so long because the two governments, particularly the British government, only sought peace on its terms, which meant defeat the IRA, it meant defeat republicanism and that doesn't work, our people are resolute.' He added: 'The proof of it is that 20 years later the IRA isn't a feature.'
Irish Examiner
8 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell personified the perpetual importance of an independent Bar
On July 27, 1813, in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell rose to defend John Magee, publisher of the Dublin Evening Post, against a charge of criminal libel. His speech that day demonstrated how a skilled barrister could transform an oppressive legal system into an instrument of political change. The case of The King v. John Magee remains one of the most memorable examples of O'Connell's extraordinary ability to use his legal expertise in the service of justice and reform. The charge against Magee arose from his publication of a review criticising the departing Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond. The article condemned Richmond's errors in governing Ireland and compared him to the worst of his predecessors, who were described as 'the profligate unprincipled Westmorland, the cold-hearted and cruel Camden, the artful and treacherous Cornwallis'. More significantly, it challenged the fundamental principle of British rule in Ireland — 'a principle of exclusion, which debars the majority of the people from the enjoyment of those privileges that are possessed by the minority'. This was no ordinary libel case. As O'Connell understood, it was unavoidably a political case, and it demanded a political speech. The prosecution was designed to suppress dissent and maintain the exclusion of Ireland's Catholic majority from political participation. Attorney General William Saurin made this clear in his opening, describing Magee as a 'ruffian' whose purpose was 'to excite [in the minds of the population] hatred against those whom the laws have appointed to rule over them, and prepare them for revolution'. O'Connell faced formidable obstacles. The law of criminal libel was so broad that, as he later observed, 'every letter I ever published could be declared a libel' and the libel law could 'produce a conviction with a proper judge and jury for The Lord's Prayer with due legal inuendoes'. More damaging still was the composition of the jury — hand-picked to ensure conviction. With characteristic boldness, O'Connell confronted this unfairness head-on, telling the jurors: 'Gentlemen, he [the Attorney General] thinks he knows his men; he knows you; many of you signed the no-popery petition... you would not have been summoned on this jury if you had entertained liberal sentiments'. Rather than being cowed by these disadvantages, O'Connell turned them into weapons. He began by meeting Saurin's personal attacks, describing the Attorney General's speech as a 'farrago of helpless absurdity'. When Saurin had stooped to calling Magee a ruffian and comparing him to 'the keeper of a house of ill fame', O'Connell lamented how far Saurin fell below the standards of the great Irish barristers such as Curran and Ponsonby: 'Devoid of taste and of genius, how can he have had memory enough to preserve this original vulgarity — he is, indeed, an object of compassion; and, from my inmost soul, I bestow on him my forgiveness and my bounteous pity'. O'Connell was even able to use Saurin's own words against him. When the Attorney General accused Magee of Jacobinism, O'Connell recalled Saurin's defence of himself against the same charge in 1800, when Saurin, then anti-union, had declared that 'agitation is ... the price necessarily paid for liberty'. O'Connell's response was devastating: 'We have paid the price, gentlemen, and the honest man refuses to give us the goods'. What made O'Connell's defence truly remarkable was how he transformed a hopeless legal case into a powerful platform for political reform. His bold claim: 'the Catholic cause is on its majestic march — its progress is rapid and obvious... We will, we must, be soon emancipated' is electrifying even now. What must it have sounded like in his voice, in that court, in that trial, in those times? His confidence in his legal position was equally striking. When Saurin threatened to crush the Catholic Board, O'Connell declared: 'I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject, I ought to know something; and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney General ... the Catholic Board is perfectly a legal assembly — that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law' Perhaps the most significant moment came not during the trial itself, but at the sentencing hearing on November 27, 1813. When Saurin attempted to use Magee's publication of O'Connell's defence speech as grounds for increasing Magee's sentence, O'Connell delivered what may be his most important statement on the role of the legal profession. In the face of personal threats of contempt and possible imprisonment following his denunciation of the Attorney General, O'Connell stood firm, delivering an impassioned defence of the importance of an independent Bar: 'It is the first interest of the public that the Bar shall be left free... the public are deeply interested in our independence; their properties, their lives, their honours, are entrusted to us; and if we, in whom such a guardianship is confided, be degraded, how can we afford protection to others?'. This was not merely professional self-interest, but a profound understanding of the Bar's constitutional role. In a system designed to exclude the majority from political participation, an independent legal profession became the last protection of individual rights. O'Connell grasped the fact that, without fearless advocates willing to challenge authority, the law would become merely an instrument of oppression. That is why, as the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, put it when addressing the O'Connell 250 Symposium in Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday last, The Bar of Ireland has always been rightly proud of the fact that O'Connell was such a distinguished member of the Bar. Two hundred years later, the existence of a fearless independent Bar, practising advocacy and giving legal advice to the highest professional standards, remains an essential guarantee of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. The many, often insidious, efforts that exist, whether prompted by powerful commercial, bureaucratic or political interests, to degrade or diminish the Bar are always, above all else, an attack on the rights of citizens and on the rule of law. O'Connell's performance in The King v. John Magee exemplifies the best traditions of forensic advocacy at The Bar of Ireland. Faced with a corrupt system, a biased tribunal, and impossible odds, he refused to bow his head or moderate his principles. Instead, he turned the forms and processes of an unjust and oppressive system against itself, using a political prosecution against dissenting speech as the means to condemn the oppressor and amplify the dissent. In an age when legal systems worldwide face challenges to their integrity and especially to the independence of barristers and advocates, O'Connell's example reminds us that the law's highest purpose is not merely to maintain order, but to secure justice. His defence of John Magee shows the difference a single barrister, armed with skill, courage, and unwavering principle, can make. Seán Guerin SC. Picture: Conor McCabe Photography. Seán Guerin SC is Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland
