Log in

View Full Version : Dying Days of the Good Friday Agreement



PRC-UTE
9th January 2007, 00:36
Dying days of the Good Friday Agreement.

When the Good Friday Agreement was reached in early 1998 the IRSP was not in a strong position politically. We had just come through a two years of internal turmoil as the rank and file of the organisation fought to restore the party to its core principles, which had been abandoned by a militaristic and suspect leadership. In the process we had lost Gino Gallagher who laid the basis for the implementation of the revolutionary principles for republican socialism as laid down by Ta Power. We had just held our first Ard-Feis for over 12 years. But while numerically small and considered by other republicans to be “one man and a fax machine” we had a republican socialist analysis of the politics of Ireland that has been totally vindicated by the events of the last nine years.
We said that the Good Friday Agreement would not succeed. It would not end discrimination, it would encourage sectarianism by institutionalizing it and that it copper-fastened partition. We called for a no vote in the subsequent referendum. We encouraged the INLA to call its ceasefire as that referendum had made clear the wishes of the vast majority of the people on the island was for peace.

We argued face to face with them that the Provisional Sinn Fein organisation did not have to take part in the power-sharing executive. Instead they could have provided a solid republican opposition to both the continued existence of partition and also lead the fight back against privatization and neo-liberal economic policies. We referred to that approach as the McCann option-named after veteran socialist Eamon McCann, who had first put forward that option.

However the provisionals rejected that approach, adopted a communal approach( the antithesis of a republican position) claiming to represent the nationalists (and the nationalists only) and sought power. As a consequence they decommissioned all their weapons, entered Stormont, worked British rule in the North, implemented privatization policies, bowed the knee to USA war lord George Bush, colluded in the doing away with the political status gained by the heroic deaths of 10 hunger strikers and belittle and demeaned other republicans who rejected their reformism.

Now as they ponder the prospect of supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland chickens are coming home to roost. Many of their members who swallowed without protest the long procession of u-turns now have reached the point of no return. A group of Concerned Republicans (which the IRSP are involved in) has held two public meeting on the issue of policing. For the first time in years Sinn Fein have been forced to justify their position in public before other republicans. Prominent members have resigned and are now considering standing as independent republicans if an election is held in March 2007. While some republicans and socialists may enjoy the spectacle of seeing Sinn Fein in difficulties they also need to take the long view. Short term provo- bashing will not win people to a principled position but only alienate possible future allies in the struggle against Imperialism

An important aspect of the policing debate is that it is almost entirely a Provisional Sinn Fein matter. The basic question posed is do Sinn Fein republicans implement British justice and policing? As a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement it was always going to come down to this. The leadership of Sinn Fein has answered that question in the affirmative at their last Ard-Comhairle meeting. The IRSP, Republican Sinn Fein and 32 County Sovereignty Movement all reject the Sinn Fein (provisional) position


If a Sinn Fein Ard Feis endorses the PSNI it is the price they are paying so that arch bigot, and hater of Catholics, Ian Paisley can become First Minister. Paisley in fact has now got a veto over whether there will be power sharing in the North. People should never forget that many years ago Paisley was a strong supporter of direct rule from Westminster. So even if Sinn Fein accept positions on the Policing Board and local district partnerships, the DUP still hold the winning cards. They can now have Paisley as First Minister or prevent Sinn Fein from sharing power by forcing Britain to a long period of direct rule. Either way they can claim success to their followers.

Some success for the peace process, some success for Sinn Fein's strategy.
What we are now witnessing in the North of Ireland is the dying days of the Good Friday Agreement. Nine years after its acceptance it still has not been implemented and has now been superseded by the St. Andrews Agreement which neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP signed up to.

The IRSP has held its position consistently over the past ten years. In all the excitement generated by the policing debate and the fall out from it, it would be a major mistake for the IRSP to abandon its clear principled republican socialist party building approach for short-term electoral advantage. Of course we should support whole-heartedly those who have a similar position to ourselves. But before supporting other candidates we need to remember the long term position of the Irish working class will not be advanced by unprincipled alliances.

The Grey Blur
9th January 2007, 16:44
We argued face to face with them that the Provisional Sinn Fein organisation did not have to take part in the power-sharing executive. Instead they could have provided a solid republican opposition to both the continued existence of partition and also lead the fight back against privatization and neo-liberal economic policies. We referred to that approach as the McCann option-named after veteran socialist Eamon McCann, who had first put forward that option.
Wouldn't refusing to engage with Unionists in effect be a refusal of the democracy? The Catholics elected their representatives, Protestants elected theirs, the two sides engage. If they didn't it would have been a return to violence, which noone wanted or could cope with.

Also, isn't what is being suggesting here, a Catholic veto, essentially the same as what the DUP are critiscised for today - refusing to obey the democratic wishes of the majority of Northern Ireland.


Of course we should support whole-heartedly those who have a similar position to ourselves
As in anti-water charges candidates?


“one man and a fax machine”
:lol: Isn't this exactly what Sinn Féin was for years until the Hunger Strikes?

PRC-UTE
9th January 2007, 18:48
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 09, 2007 04:44 pm

Wouldn't refusing to engage with Unionists in effect be a refusal of the democracy? The Catholics elected their representatives, Protestants elected theirs, the two sides engage. If they didn't it would have been a return to violence, which noone wanted or could cope with.
Your early political training in physcial force republicanism is showing. The only options aren't between parliamentary politics and armed struggle, but developing mass struggle in the footsteps of Connolly. The IRSP's said this for some time.



Also, isn't what is being suggesting here, a Catholic veto, essentially the same as what the DUP are critiscised for today - refusing to obey the democratic wishes of the majority of Northern Ireland.


It's an undemocratic state, created against the wishes of all the Irish people (neither unionist nor nationalists wanted it, no Irish voter cast a vote to create it) kept in place through some extreme antidemocratic measures like pogroms and massive institutionalised discrimination. I don't know why I am having to explain this...

The Grey Blur
9th January 2007, 19:54
Your early political training in physcial force republicanism is showing.
:lol: 'Political Training'? I just thought the IRA were class. Yeo, up the RA, etc


the only options aren't between parliamentary politics and armed struggle
In the context of the GFA they surely were - it's primary function was as a peace treaty and a pledge of cooperation. I agree it was balls but it was clearly a forward step.


but developing mass struggle in the footsteps of Connolly
How can you develop mass struggle when you are refusing even to engage with the elected representatives of half the working class.


It's an undemocratic state, created against the wishes of all the Irish people (neither unionist nor nationalists wanted it, no Irish voter cast a vote to create it) kept in place through some extreme antidemocratic measures like pogroms and massive institutionalised discrimination. I don't know why I am having to explain this...
But today Catholics have parity with Protestants and it's up to us to convince both communities that Socialism is the way forward rather than saying how the partition in 1921 was undemocratic (which it was).

PRC-UTE
9th January 2007, 23:59
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected]uary 09, 2007 07:54 pm

the only options aren't between parliamentary politics and armed struggle
In the context of the GFA they surely were - it's primary function was as a peace treaty and a pledge of cooperation. I agree it was balls but it was clearly a forward step.


It wasn't a step forward at all- it's just unleashed sectarian, communalist resource allocation politics under the guise of republicanism. It's a massive defeat for us; it's succeeded in pitting 'the two' communities against each other to fight for scraps.




but developing mass struggle in the footsteps of Connolly
How can you develop mass struggle when you are refusing even to engage with the elected representatives of half the working class.


Wtf are you talking about? We've even worked on the ground with some unionist politicians to defuse sectarian tensions. Like every other accusation you bring up you just pulled that out of nowhere and embarassed yourself.

For the record, the position of the IRSP is that we'll work with anyone to resolve the conflict, except the Brits.



It's an undemocratic state, created against the wishes of all the Irish people (neither unionist nor nationalists wanted it, no Irish voter cast a vote to create it) kept in place through some extreme antidemocratic measures like pogroms and massive institutionalised discrimination. I don't know why I am having to explain this...
But today Catholics have parity with Protestants and it's up to us to convince both communities that Socialism is the way forward rather than saying how the partition in 1921 was undemocratic (which it was).

:huh:

So it's an undemocratic sectarian state, that lacks any stability, is a carnival of reaction that has divided our class, but oh well?

Andy Bowden
10th January 2007, 22:58
Theres a qualitative difference between "engage with" politicians of one side of the working class and joining in a political coalition with them.

If half of Ireland voted for the SP and the other half voted for Fianna Fail would you be calling for the SP to join in a political governing coalition with the right?

Obviously there are differences, in that there are probably sectarian elements among those who don't want to be in the same government as the Unionists. But I can't see why any Socialist would decry Republicans for "lack of unity" with the Paisleyites.

The Grey Blur
10th January 2007, 23:22
My point was that Sinn Féin were elected on a manifesto of engaging with the Protestant community and bringing an end to violence. After them being elected on this stance they could not have then turned round and directly contradicted it - that's how politics works.

If the IRSP had been elected by the majority of Catholics on their 'no-negotiation with Unionists' stance then they would have the democratuc right to then carry this out. Unfortunately they weren't - the majority of people voted for cross-community peace talks and an end to political violence. The GFA was a progressive step in ending unpopular violence but, as PRC says, useless in ending sectarianism as it simply provided it with a governmental seal of approval.


So it's an undemocratic sectarian state, that lacks any stability, is a carnival of reaction that has divided our class, but oh well?
No, struggle against it, just like any other bourgeois state.

PRC-UTE
11th January 2007, 00:41
Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 10, 2007 10:58 pm
Obviously there are differences, in that there are probably sectarian elements among those who don't want to be in the same government as the Unionists. But I can't see why any Socialist would decry Republicans for "lack of unity" with the Paisleyites.

OMG YOU'RE A NATIONALIST SECTARIAN ANTIPEACE DISSIDENT!!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

Can't blame poor PR for not being able to cop on. He traded apolitical physical force republicanism for what Connolly called apolitical gas and waterworks socialism.

Andy Bowden
13th January 2007, 01:18
What Sinn Fein say in their manifesto is irrelevant. The Republican Party make a lot of things clear in their manifesto as well.

What is relevant is that Socialists shouldn't back political alliances with anti-working class parties like the DUP. The fact the majority of people voted for Sinn Fein and DUP just shows the size of the challenge facing Socialists in Northern Ireland, not some reason to shrug our shoulders and say "well they voted for it".

gilhyle
17th January 2007, 19:14
The issue is not whether you engage in power sharing with a devolved administration (the SDLP policy from the 1970s now adopted by Sinn Fein) or choose to become the opposition (the older Nationalist Party position).

The issue is whether devolved administration is worth sacrificing for - cos that is what is on offer. Britain says they will devolve certain powers if the locals make up and shake. The local think that is worth it. Why ?

Firstly, patronage.

Secondly , political power over the waterworks etc....maybe even part of the police

But what is behind this is a deeper, difficult question. What if the irreformable northern ireland statelet CAN be reformed. OK for seventy years it couldnt, it was built solidly on sectarianism. But the prosperity of the Republic, the unity of Europe, the dominant position of the USA....all this may mean that the irreformable has become reformable. Behind the screen of the intensified sectarianism on the ground, may be the roots of a 'normal' capitalist society twenty or thirty or fifty years in the future.

People smell that and that is the 'problem' for revolutionaries.