16.04.1998
For a republican boycott
Dave Craig of the Revolutionary Democratic Group (faction of the SWP) prepares for the Irish peace referendum
All Irish republicans, whether nationalist or socialist or republican communists, should actively campaign for a boycott of the referendum on May 22nd, both north and south of the border. A mass boycott organised by Irish republicans would strengthen the struggle for self-determination and a united Ireland. It would represent a vote of no confidence in the British-Irish Agreement, which the capitalist governments of Ireland and the UK are trying to foist on the Irish people.
The agreement will provide for a Northern Ireland Assembly, a north-south ministerial council, plus a Council for the British Isles. It should lead to release of prisoners and decommissioning of weapons. There is to be a new Civil Rights Commission and an Equality Commission. On the face of it, the agreement might seem to many people to be a step forward. It may even be presented as a transitional move that will lead to a united Ireland. Therefore we need to assess the situation quite carefully.
The agreement is a compromise - some have called it an historic compromise - between unionism and nationalism, between royalism (loyalism) and republicanism. The core of this is a deal between the capitalist governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic made in their secret talks. But we can be sure it is a deal that will be good for business interests. On the ground the governments are represented by the Ulster Unionist Party and the nationalist SDLP. This is the central axis around which the whole agreement hangs. It became very clear at the end of the negotiations.
The strategy of British imperialism has been to make limited concessions in order to reincorporate Northern Ireland into the union. The purpose is to restabilise British rule in Ireland. This is why it has been called ‘Sunningdale II’. It has clear parallels with the previous failed agreement of 1974. This last attempt at “power sharing” collapsed when a majority of unionists were not prepared to make concessions to nationalists. The Ulster Workers Council destroyed the deal.
Today the situation is different. The whole UK state structure is in need of change. ‘Sunningdale II’ is part of a broader strategy of the ‘reformed (constitutional) monarchy’ or ‘new unionism’. It involves constitutional change not only for Northern Ireland, but Scotland, Wales, House of Lords, local government, the London mayor, proportional representation etc.
The Tories rejected constitutional reform. But they were forced by the struggle to adopt it for Ireland alone. Blair’s programme is thus the logical step on from the Tories, to fully develop and embrace the strategy. The New Labour agenda fits more closely with the needs of the state. John Major’s government spent 17 months insisting on IRA disarmament as a precondition for talks. When the IRA ended its ceasefire, that unrealistic nonsense was blown away. The weak Major government, dependant on Unionist votes, could not deliver. The new prime minister is not encumbered by any of that. The Blair victory freed the state to push the agreement through.
It would be wrong to think that this agreement is simply the result of a cunning strategy by British imperialism. It is also the product of the long war. It represents a military stalemate. Since 1974 the republican movement is much better organised both politically and militarily. They have forced the British government and the Unionists to the negotiating table. But they are not strong enough to defeat the British army or force withdrawal. Of special significance in this regard was the ability of the IRA to plant bombs in the City of London. More than any other action, this went to the heart and pocket of the British establishment. The future of the City as a world financial centre, and the huge profits associated with that, would be seriously damaged if the IRA could mount further explosions. It was the billionaires of the City that told John Major in no uncertain terms to pull his finger out and cut a deal to neutralise the IRA.
The IRA forced Major and then Trimble to get a grip on reality. As a result of the struggle by the republican movement, the unionist camp is now sharply divided. Paisley has remained intransigent. But he has been partly neutralised by having the loyalist paramilitaries inside the negotiating process. It is difficult for Paisley to mobilise the loyalist working class against the will of the paramilitaries. Being in the front line of a deadly war, the loyalist paramilitaries are less impressed by demagogues in the rear. When Paisley turned up at the talks, he was heckled by supporters of the paramilitaries as “an old windbag”. They are not going to be the stage army for Paisley to wheel on. Without the loyalist workers it will not be possible for the agreement to be sunk by direct action.
The agreement is not a step forward, rather a recognition of the stalemate. This is what has been achieved so far. It is bringing us up to date with what has been achieved so far. It is bringing the theory of unionism into line with reality. If workers organise themselves and then go on strike for a wage increase. In recognition of the increased strength of the workers, the boss offers a pay rise. The purpose of this is to bring the strike to an end and begin to re-establish control over the workforce. Later the boss can begin to chip away at any gains. Even if a majority vote for a return to work, the boss will be concerned if there is a significant militant minority that does not.
Sinn Fein’s support for the agreement is very desirable, but not absolutely necessary. The political deal can be done without them. As long as the Hume-Trimble bloc remains in place to unite the majority of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. Having said that, it has been an essential part of the plan to neutralise the IRA. If Sinn Fein will back the agreement then so much the better. If they will end the armed struggle and decommission weapons in exchange for prisoner release, that is a significant gain. But if on the other hand the agreement splits and demoralises the IRA, then that weakens their ability to function effectively. Sinn Fein needs to be kept on board only so that it can be stitched up.
Will the agreement prove to be transitional to a united Ireland? Ultimately only time will tell. But there is nothing inherent in the agreement that automatically leads in that direction. On the contrary, there is much more that leads in the opposite direction. What leads to a united Ireland is not this agreement, but the struggle of the people themselves. This agreement means erecting a new barrier to a united Ireland, which might survive five years or 105 years. It depends on who is going to fight to overturn it.
This brings us back to the referendum. This is the first opportunity that republicans have to defeat the agreement or weaken it. We will find out who is going to back the deal and who is going to oppose it. We can of course recognise reality without voting for it. We can recognise that a sort of stalemate exists. Republicans should not give this stalemate our seal of approval. Such approval will provide moral and practical arguments against republicanism from now on. We must not spread the illusion that this agreement will lead to a united Ireland.
If this agreement gains overwhelming support, then that will greatly strengthen new unionism. On the other hand, if there is strong opposition, then the agreement is unlikely to survive for very long. Paisley’s brand of old unionism will not be resurrected without a significant political shift to the right in the rest of the UK. If there is strong and distinct opposition from republicans then it won’t be too long before a united Ireland and British withdrawal comes to be the only option. The republican movement should not call for a ‘no’ vote and confuse their opposition with Paisley’s ‘Ulster says no’ campaign.
There should be a mass active boycott. This means mobilising opposition on the streets. We should deny Tony Blair the ‘oxygen of publicity’ that a large ‘yes’ vote will provide. Let us make sure this agreement looks very wobbly, because the republicans are standing out firmly for a united Ireland.
A mass republican boycott might not secure a majority to defeat the agreement. But it would provide the most fertile ground to continue the struggle for republicanism. An agreement would be in place, but its days would surely be numbered.
After the referendum, Irish republicans will have to take stock of how to advance towards a united Ireland. At one time Irish republicans either ignored England or carried out military campaigns or looked to the Labour Party. What they have failed to do is to see the republican struggle in an all-UK context. We need to work for a united republican movement involving the English, Scottish and Welsh working class. The demand for a federal republic of England, Scotland and Wales and a united Ireland is something which all republicans should support.
Without doubt the growth of a republican movement in other parts of this ‘union’ would greatly aid the Irish cause.