statement on Ireland: Writing off withdrawal In September the Labour Party published a 32-page document outlining its democratic socialist programme' for achieving an end to 'violence, poverty and division' in Ireland. The document, complete with foreword by the Right Honourable Neil Kinnock MP, is the party's most important document on Ireland for a very long time - to judge, at least, by its length. The Labour leadership's usual con- tributions on Ireland consist of attempts to outdo the government in its condem- nation of 'terrorist' violence or its con- gratulations to the SAS. Given this, some people might interpret the publi- cation of the document as a great step forward for the withdrawal movement. It is understandable that the left might feel a sense of victory, in that the leadership has been forced to say something on Ireland other than its usual knee-jerk reactions to the latest "atrocity'. But it would be foolish and prema- ture to start popping champagne corks (or whatever it is that anti-imperialists do on these occasions) at this point. The approach outlined in the document goes as follows. The Labour Party is a democratic party and therefore it will not make any chan- ges in the sovereignty of the six-counties without the consent of the majority. However, it is in favour in principle of a united Ireland since it recognises that*... the national question, and hence the border, is central to the "troubles" and that only the resolution of that question can bring peace'. Hence it will embark on a politi- cal programme designed to win the consent of the loyalists to a united Ireland. The loyalists will be given a veto on the ques- tion of sovereignty but they will not be given a veto on policies designed to win 'consent'. The document's authors admit that they don't know how they will measure 'consent' but they assure us that a future Labour government will be able to ascertain somehow that 'consent' was being given. The two key words in the document are reform and harmonisation: reform of the north and harmonisation with the south. Its only criticism of the Anglo-Irish Accord is that there is not enough reform and not enough har- monisation in it. Irish people everywhere will be delighted to hear that what the Labour Party has in store for them is some weighted average of the economic, legal, political, educational and cultural institutions of the 6- and 26-coun- ty statelets. . The reform part of the programme is SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 10 November 1988
E A STAUR ES designed to achieve 'the erosion of historically and culturally entrenched communal antagonisms to enable a united Ireland to function harmoniously'.
Thus it gives the impression that the problem with Ireland is the obsession of its people with history and with religion - a typically anti-Irish racist assumption. The more detailed aspects of Labour's reform programme are not greatly different from what it promises the working classes of England, Scotland and Wales.
It will 'introduce measures designed to begin to reverse the extreme inequalities which have resulted from the market-based policies of the Conservative Government'. For instance, it will create a unit of the Northern Ireland Office to co-ordinate state investment and economic assistance.
It will co-ordinate European and external investment and it will increase public spending on housing and infrastructure.
The document states that 'Much of Labour's longer-term economic strategy will be based on the strengthening of economic ties with the Republic'. Given the disastrous state of the 26 county economy, that is a statement more likely to encourage nationalists to sign up with Ian Paisley than to encourage loyalists to consent to the removal of the border!
On political reform: 'A Labour administration will promote the negotiation of an agreed system of devolved government including a power-sharing executive as envisaged in the Anglo-Irish Agreement'. However, if 'political parties' (it doesn't specify which) don't agree a structure for a devolved government, a Labour government will continue with direct rule. Even if such a devolved government structure could be agreed, the document warns that a Labour government will continue to hang onto direct control of any areas it sees fit.
The second half of this political programme is designed to win consent - 'harmonisation' To carry out this programme, a Labour government would use the institutions set up by the
British Troops in Dublin, 1917 Anglo-Irish Agreement — an agreement which has failed in every possible respect. In place of any recognition of this fact, we have a proposal to expand the scope and resources of the Agreement, the Inter-Governmental Conference and the secretariat which services it. There's nothing like starting out on a sound footing!
Among the subjects due to be harmonised are the economy, social security provision, educational provision, legal structures and last, but most certainly not least, security. To facilitate the latter, 'measures will have to be taken to rebuild public confidence in the respective police forces and other security services'. In particular, we can look forward to the eventual integration of the different agencies. Readers (and Robert Russell) will be forgiven if they were under the obviously mistaken impression that this is one bit of harmonisation which has already taken place.
So there we have it, the biggest document on Ireland the Labour Party has produced for many years - one page for every county in Ireland. Yet in almost every respect it is a waste of paper. It will not contribute one iota to Irish unity or to furthering the rights of Irish people to determine their own future. In fact, it explicitly rules out the one policy which might achieve that end - a commitment and a timetable to withdraw.
Perhaps this is all we can expect from a leadership which picks out as one of the three failures of successive British governments, the failure 'to steer Northern Ireland's people towards a just and democratic accommodation of their differences'.
If only that were the worst of it.
Jean Reilly Page 9
F Rocky road for Kinnock Labour party conference demonstrated the scope of Kinnock's ambition to re-fashion the party into one that would be seen by the ruling class as fit to govern. The Policy review and Kinnock's speech firmly establish that the leadership wish to manage capitalism more efficiently than the Tories.But conference also indicated that the left has not been crushed and in some ways is stronger than a year ago. The decision of Benn and Heffer to run in the leadership elections against Kin- nock and Hattersley was never seen primarily as a contest about votes. Rather it was a political stand to attempt to stem the tide of new realism which seeks to change the whole nature of the british labour movement. The challenge acted as a focus for many militants in- cluding outside the Labour party. Cer- tainly it is the case that without it the left would have been in an even weaker posi- tion after Blackpool. Through introducing a series of rule changes (the infamous agenda 2) which had not been discussed anywhere in advance, the leadership have taken a gigantic step to undermining the sovereignty of conference and moving towards an individual membership party on the same lines as most european Social Democratic par- The most important changes are ties. the decision to centralise all membership applica- tions through Walworth Rd, the decision that 20% of the PLP have to nominate someone before there can be a leadership challenge, the imposition of bye election candidates and suspending members under investigation. These are designed to produce a much more passive membership and could lead to inten- sification of the witch hunt. Further it was made clear both during and after conference by Kin- nock that decisions by conference were fairly meaningless given the Policy Review. The most dramatic event of the week was Ron Todd's pre-prepared speech to the Tribune rally in which he made a passionate defence of unilateralism. This intervention clearly changed the mood of conference from one in which teh leadership had complete control to one in which there was hope of some successes for the left. While Todd himself wishes to dif-. ferentiate between support for the 'dream ticket' and support for thier policies, neither the leadership nor the media will brook such sub- Iteties. The press gave Todd the Scargill treat- ment not because they don't know the dif- fernce, but becuase the right need to isolate him. There was no serious challenge to the presence of the EEPTU scabs at confernce. Several constituency delegates raised the point Page 10
HER ALT US REELS at the begining of conference and were fobbed off. But no one single trade union delegation raised the issue - not the NUM nor the printers. Twice during the week