|
During
a debate in Belfast at this years Feile an Phobail,
George Galloway, the ex member of the British Labour
Party who these days sits as an MP at Westminster
for Respect, the Unity Coalition, criticised Unionists
and challenged their commitment to democracy by suggesting
that a referendum be held within the United Kingdom,
to decide whether the six counties should remain within
the British State. He claimed he was confident that
the British electorate would vote, overwhelmingly,
for a military and political disengagement from the
north of Ireland
In reply Danny Morrison wrote an
article on the subject of a referendum, in which
he described it as a “tantalising proposal”.
He correctly pointed out that in countless opinion
polls the British public had time and again voted
against the UK’s continued Union with the six
north-eastern counties of Ulster. Morrison in this
article also touched on the strategy behind PIRA’s
military campaign in England during the past thirty
years.
Myself
I cannot see how anyone who considers himself or herself
an Irish Republican, or indeed a democrat of any kind
could support such a referendum. For a start, win
or lose, by doing so you would be legitimising the
Union as it currently stands. As the Union is illegitimate
in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Irish
people, the people who live in the part of the UK
beyond the six counties clearly have no right to vote
in any referendum on the political future of the island
of Ireland. The only situation in which one could
possibly foresee such a referendum having any legitimacy
is if the British government decided to withdraw from
the six counties unilaterally and thus they decided
to ask their electorate to endorse their decision
by a non binding referenda.
However I do not feel this was the type of referendum
George Galloway was proposing. What about the people
who live in the 26 Counties and make up the balk of
the Irish nation, are they to be expected to be disenfranchised
and stand idle whilst this Referendum is taking place?
To have no say in the future shape of their nation,
are they expected to just grin and bear it whilst
the British people alone decide, ridiculous? Furthermore,
from a political point of view, no serious politician
should ask a question of importance without knowing
the answer, or at the very least having a good idea
of what it will be. The outcome of any withdrawal
referendum in the UK would be like playing a game
of chance. Far too many imponderables will be injected
into the equation, the media, business, the 26 County
political establishment, the Catholic Church, the
EU, etc, etc.
Danny Morrison then moves on to briefly explain some
of the thinking behind PIRA's English campaign. Many
years ago he once said, "the British have no
understanding of what makes us tick", well on
reading his comments about the IRA military campaign
across the Irish sea, I am not sure Danny has much
idea what makes the English tick. The fact is the
campaign in Britain was more often than not ill-thought
through and wrong headed. It was never going to help
build an anti- war movement; indeed it almost made
it a certainty that such a movement would fail. What
it did do was bring retribution down upon the Irish
communities living in England and made it almost impossible
for those who supported Irish unity to get a fair
hearing. When near the latter part of the armed struggle,
IRA targeting became more exact and people could see
a purpose behind some of the operations, there may
have been more understanding, but by then it was far
too late.
Outrages like the Birmingham pub bombs and sadly many
others, simply played into the UK government's and
media's hands and allowed them to portray the Republican
Movement in the manner they did. Exploding bombs in
England at times may have helped raise morale within
some Republican communities, much as the bombing of
cities like Dresden and Koln by the RAF did in Britain
during WW2. However whilst the raising of morale on
the Republican homefront, particularly in some of
the darkest days is not something to be scoffed at,
the basic truth of the matter was it was working class
people killing and maiming working class people, nothing
to write home about by anyone's standards. What always
puzzled me during this period is why Republican strategists
thought that a bomb here and there could demoralise
the English people to such an extent that they would
demand their government change course. The generation
that was mainly on the receiving end of these IRA
bombs had come to adulthood around the time of WW2
or soon after. Many of them had experienced the Blitz
(most IRA targets were in London or other big cities).
That is, tons of TNT rained down upon them courtesy
of the Luftwaffe night after night; yet in the main
this reinforced people's determination to endure and
defeat the Nazis.
As to the belief that sending Tommy home in a box
would change the English publics mind about the war
as happened in the US during the Vietnam war, this
is doubly wrong. Firstly, the majority of English
people, as Danny has pointed out, were already opposed
to partition and their troops' presence in the north
and secondly, it was a totally different situation.
The majority of the young US soldiers killed in Vietnam
were conscripts; by the time the British army started
sending large numbers of soldiers to the North of
Ireland, it had become entirely an army of volunteers.
People became regular soldiers by choice, thus there
was not the emotional pull that was felt in the US
towards youngsters who had been conscripted, the more
so there as the system was so unfair, if you had money,
power, or pull you ended up not going to Vietnam,
as happened with the likes of Bush and Clinton.
Probably when this period is looked at in the cold
light of day we will find that tradition played a
large part in instigating the campaign in England.
The old beards did it, so must we? Indeed is this
not much the same reason that CIRA and the RIRA give
to justify their armed struggle. Perhaps it would
have been better to ask did it work? I feel that these
days people often misinterpret the raison d'être
for the armed struggle. Few realistic people down
the years ever thought it could defeat the British
State. It was necessary to send out the message that
England's continuing occupation was not accepted by
Irish men and women, i.e. each generation would prove
their resistance by taking to arms. In other words
it was in many ways armed propaganda. True this changed
with the Adams theory of the long war, when many did
for a time begin to believe that if they could maintain
the military pressure and hold the line, then eventually
the Brits could be driven into the sea. But that was
on yesterday's menu, armed struggle is firmly off
today's. As Anthony McIntyre wrote, “the long
war has been turned into the long wait”. . .
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
