For the world, this is the PT or post-tsunami period. But in Ireland it’s looking like the PNBH or post Northern Bank Heist era. This is because something has changed in the political landscape since more than £20million was stolen from a Belfast bank and the consequences may be profound.

Two key changes are evident. The first is the degree to which the robbery is seen to undermine the republican movement’s commitment to politics, the second is the urgency with which other political actors have begun to openly confront Sinn Féin.
To take the first, did the IRA commit the robbery? Well, nobody’s been caught yet and the IRA says it didn’t but, as many have said, they’ve been found to be wrong or inaccurate – or maybe even deliberately misleading – before.
All the evidence says they were involved. Even if not, it’s inconceivable that anyone would have done it without their permission. In that case, the perpetrators will have negotiated a major payoff.
The robbers might even have been IRA members on a sanctioned freelance ‘no attribution’ mission. In either case, while the IRA might not have actually conducted the raid as an IRA mission, the overpowering likelihood is that it was closely involved and may even have provided logistical support. That would all mean that while the IRA statement is true, it is also unfaithful to the truth. But there’s little new in that.
Lulled by the benign post-peace process atmosphere, younger Irish people know little of the history of the IRA beyond what they hear in Celtic fans’ hymns. It is probably impossible for them to comprehend just how Jesuitical they are in their arguments and evasions.
The capacity of republicans to turn words on their heads is rivalled only by the Roman Curia. Hermetically sealed from the need to be reasonable or engage in the commonplace or the compromised, they can convince themselves that black is white and that wrong is right.
The IRA has been guilty of many atrocities since the beginning of the Troubles in Northern Ireland at the end of the 1960s. These include the barbarous murder of Jean McConville.
Her ‘crime’ was to give succour to a wounded British soldier. For this she was abducted, tortured and murdered by the IRA. This was acknowledged by Sinn Féin’s Mitchel McLaughlin as ‘wrong’. But he refused to describe it as a crime.
Other atrocities include the bombings of the La Mon restaurant and the Enniskillen memorial and the murder at a crossroads in Armagh of a busload of Protestant workers. But for the IRA, while they may have been ‘wrong’ or ‘regrettable’, these are not ‘crimes’, simply acts of war.
War? How so? Ah yes. Well, the IRA regards itself as the government of Ireland and has done so since the civil war. In its view Bertie Ahern is not legitimately Taoiseach of Ireland and all the other politicians who have held ministerial office are upstarts and impostors. This ‘real government’ sees itself as engaged in a war that it claims was started by the British…
They use ‘the war’ to justify all actions and strategies, including protection rackets and robberies. But this comes at a price. The IRA is now so enmeshed in crime that it will be extremely difficult to disengage.
It is not alone in this, of course. The same is true of loyalist organisations and other republican groups as well. But these organisations aren’t nearly so close to political power as is the IRA’s civilian movement, Sinn Féin.
It is this proximity to power in both Northern Ireland and Ireland that makes the present situation so sinister. It is true that early Fianna Fáil was described by one of its own leaders as ‘barely constitutional’ and criminals and tax evaders have been in or close to power before. But none had at their disposal a private standing army with such power, experience, technical expertise and all-island presence. (The Blueshirts had none of these attributes).
It’s amazing that voters are so sanguine about Sinn Féin’s possible participation in Government without a clear demonstration that the army has been literally and metaphorically stood down and the weapons destroyed.
The second evident major change is to do with the political environment. Recent events have emboldened other parties to take the argument to Sinn Féin in a way that has not been seen for a very long time.
This has two focal points. The first is the forthcoming centenary of Sinn Féin. The present party had been looking forward to a clear run on this one. But others are claiming their share as well and in so doing they are contesting the meaning of its legacy and of the term ‘republican’.
Michael McDowell is a grandson of Eoin McNeill, commander of the Irish volunteers at the time of the 1916 rising. He claims the right to celebrate the anniversary of the founding of Sinn Féin, in which his grandfather was a leading member.
So too does Fine Gael which, more than any other party, represents the political inheritance of Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Féin. Ditto Fianna Fáil, which emerged from the ashes of the civil war as the political expression of non-violent republicanism.
The other focal point concerns James Connolly. The last year has seen a belated movement by the Irish left to recover Connolly’s inheritance from the stifling embrace of the green crow.
In many ways, Sinn Féin misappropriated the term republican… now others want it back. If they have the balls for a real debate, it should be fascinating. It will reinvigorate notions of democracy, republicanism and socialism alike. Even better news, it might even be the dose of salts Sinn Féin needs so badly.b