Ireland After Labour

Ireland After Labour
Matt Merrigan (1985, Published by Pluto Press in a collection under this title)

Matt Merrigan is District Secretary of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (known in Britain as the TGWU), and President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. He lives and works in Dublin.

The great difficulty which has dogged the Irish labour movement is that trade union struggle has always been subsumed in the struggle for national independence. The last socialist influence on the trade union movement petered out when the 26 County State was formed and the middle-class nationalist movement filled the vacuum.

Connolly's role in the insurrection of 1916 was the high point of organized involvement by the unions in the movement for national independence. In the period after the Rising leading up to 1922, many of the fighters on the ground were ordinary small farmers, artisans and skilled workers from the towns; but the trade union movement as such played no coherent role.

The political leadership of the nation was clearly in the hands of the contending nationalist factions that led the struggle for independence, and with Connolly shot, they were dominated by the middle classes. Economic struggle was peripheral in this situation, and that has tended to be the case ever since. The Irish Labour Party formed by Connolly and Larkin out of the trade union movement was overshadowed, and even after Independence in the 1920s and 30s, it never had that conscious Marxist or socialist orientation that its founders had hoped for. To the left of the ruling party, Cumann na Gael, were the Left Nationalists of Fianna Fáil which had taken the anti-Treaty side in the War of Independence. Fianna Fáil drew its support from the small farmers and urban workers, developing a populist character like that of the Labour Party in Britain. Although it was never overtly socialist, Fianna Fáil introduced a lot of socially progressive legislation, including the first Conditions of Employment Act governing hours and conditions at work. The Irish Labour Party was politically overshadowed.

In fighting for political trade unionism, Connolly faced the uphill struggle of persuading the Irish working class to set itself socialist aims in a situation where the country was subjected to the imperial rule of Westminster. If Independence had been won decades before, it might have been easier; but that struggle drained the energy of the working class which could otherwise have gone into building up a democratic Labour Party basing itself on the unions.

Connolly's view was that where political hegemony was exercised by an outside power and there was no Irish political sovereignty, it was almost impossible to make economic or social progress. He felt that the anti-imperialist struggle was a prerequisite for the development of a socalist movement. Perhaps in looking back we tend to over-exaggerate his influence over what was a miniscule Labour movement at the time. But it was an evocative period. It certainly acts as a reference point for the working class today.

The uniqueness of those years was a combination of an upsurge in nationalist consciousness which led to the insurrection of 1916, and the growth of 'New Unionism' where unskilled and semi-skilled workers were becoming organized for the first time. Most of the English craft unions were operating in Ireland, but the organization of general unions already sweeping through the mills and factories in England gave birth to 'New Unionism'. It was new because it was not based on craft exclusivity and was accompanied by militant recognition struggles of the fiercest kind. James Larkin came to Ireland on the crest of this wave of militancy as Irish organizer of the National Union of Dock Labourers to consolidate a base for the union.

Connolly had been politically active in Ireland before and had already launched the small Irish Socialist Republican Party. From 1912 onwards he worked with Larkin to build a union movement that was strong enough to act in the interest of Irish workers. They were forced to break away from the Dock Labourers' union when its London leaders became an obstacle. The union they formed was the Irish Transport and General Workers Union.

Building the union was not easy. In 1913, the Federated Employers of the day combined to break its influence, and this resulted in a lock-out and general strike of epic proportions. It lasted for eight months and although it fizzled out with no formal recognition won, the organization remained intact. It had been shown that employers couldn't break the back of the union and that was what counted. Even workers who were not involved in the strike began to organize. Once roots of the union were laid down, it grew to almost 70,000 members by the 1940s, expanding to its present size in the 1950s and 1960s.

Because Ireland is a small country, even the Transport Union has never become the kind of conglomerate you have in Britain. The organizational units of the unions in Ireland remain small, and there is a much greater sense of immediacy between officials and membership. You don't get that remoteness from the membership that characterizes many British unions; the tradition of rank-and-file militancy which created the unions remains.

I've stressed the negative side of the domination of the independence movement but there is another side, Like most revolutionary movements, the nationalists worked hard to build links with sympathetic radical movements and governments in other countries. The independence struggle gave an international dimension to the whole political. movement, and this has affected the unions. When the very first moves were being made to set up the Trade Union Congress at the end of the nineteenth century there were strong links being formed between the Irish workers and the European trade union centres. When the Spanish Civil War was raging, the leaders of the amalgamated unions took a progressive line, despite the hysterical campaign waged by the church against the Republican government, saying they were burning convents and hanging nuns.

That feeling of internationalism is still there. Workers at Dunnes' Stores in Dublin have been fighting the most marvellous struggle against Apartheid. It is the first industrial action anywhere in the world to be taken in support of workers in South Africa. They started with daily boycotts of goods, and when the management threatened them with the sack if they didn't stop the action, they refused to budge.

The young girl at the centre of the dispute had seen a circular from her union recording that Conference had decided that as far as possible they should refuse to handle South African goods. She didn't know much about the political situation, she admitted, but she was committed enough to her union to carry out policy. Since then, she has learned a lot more about Apartheid and the philosophical basis of the struggle against it. Out of loyalty to the union she found herself leading her first trade union dispute, and the first dispute in the world against Apartheid.

There are lots of Latin American support organizations active in Ireland, and there is great enthusiasm for supporting the struggle of people in Nicaragua, El Salvador and the Philippines. Practically all Third World countries have trade union support groups, particularly those under totalitarian regimes where unions are outlawed. The church-based 'Trócaire' also collects money for trade union organizations, so there is consciousness-raising coming from two directions.

Irish workers have a natural affinity with workers in countries that are still under foreign domination. They feel particularly strongly for people suffering under American finance stooges like the former Somoza regime in Nicaragua or the Guatemalan regime at the moment. They believe that imperialism, whether of the naked military variety, or the more subtle American multi-national variety, has no place in the world. In the peace movement too there is a feeling that imperialism is a peace hazard in the Third World.

Feelings of generosity and internationalism do not extend to being conned by the EEC. It is part of the world malaise of capitalism and offers no way forward, because that system is cannibalistic: the smaller and more vulnerable states will go to the wall. This is our inescapable fate in the EEC. Before entry, our small-scale economy survived and maintained its economic sovereignty through the intensively interventionist and protective role of the state. Since entry we have lost 120,000 jobs and 40 per cent of our manufacturing base. The super levy for milk could easily add a further 30,000 to the dole queue. We have long since passed the stage of waiting to see the effects of membership; the EEC has become harmful to both the economic and political interest of Ireland.

The events in Northern Ireland from 1969 onwards have created a new awareness of the role of Britain in Ireland's affairs. The weariness after the Civil War, and the emigration of the 1930s and 1940s took their toll in breaking the continuity of Connolly and Larkin. The Republican Congress of the 1930s was a short-lived attempt to give the remnants of the IRA a left orientation, but socialist organizations never really took root. The vacuum was filled by the populist Fianna Fáil.

From partition until the 1970s, the outlook of Ireland's political leaders was dominated by the philosophy of Unionism. The combination of politicians who could be assembled to denounce the violence of the Provisionals had to be seen to be believed. They completely skate over the systematic persecution of the nationalist minority in the North, the degradation and human deprivation there. They not only question the struggle of a really cruelly subjected minority against a cruel unfeeling majority who have used the courts and the armed police to deny their elementary rights, but they also go on to seek to deny the effect of anti-imperialist struggles for the Irish people to be free in past years. They try to draw a fine distinction between the violence and political struggle which created the 26 County State and what they call the 'terrorism' of today.

There are convoluted theories that have been erected to try to prove that the descendants of the original colonists of Northern Ireland can now accord themselves the status of a nation. It is argued that through the distillation of various traditions and religions over the centuries, this small group of colonists and their descendents now constitutes an alternative part of the Irish nation not Irish, yet not British. It is a theory of a 'two nation' Ireland.

Politicians of this variety are loath to point out that the 'demand' of this semi-nation is to remain a British protectorate. Paradoxically, the only organization that attempted to fit this dichotomous concept of Irish nationhood into some kind of constitutional or political framework was Provisional Sinn Féin. In their Éire Nua policy, they envisaged four Provincial governments in a federal Ireland that would allow provinces to reflect the regional and local characteristics of the Irish people. Yet the 'two nationists' who adapted their philosophy to Unionism rejected this as a pipe dream. I understand that Sinn Féin have since dropped this policy, but at least it was an attempt to come to grips with the fact that there were regional differences and attitudes.

There is not going to be an easy solution. In finding it we are going to have to confront the issues as they are today, even if that involves destroying myths, illusions and concepts on the way.

One myth is the idea that in a period of economic decline Britain can remain a world power. The Tories and the patriotic wing of the Labour Party try to divert attention away from the economic and social crisis. It is understandable that Margaret Thatcher and the Tories should con the British people with a spurious scenario, but it is incomprehensible that they should have mesmerized such large sections of the Labour Party into defending British imperialist history, especially in relation to Ireland. In socialist terms, this is totally indefensible.

The confused understanding of the nature of imperialism in the British Labour movement has also impaired the understanding of the British TUC and its affiliated unions – particularly those with members in Ireland – about Ireland's national question and its resolution.

The Irish trade union movement encompasses within its ranks an overwhelming majority of members who you could say were broadly in favour of a united Ireland. By this they mean the ending of British claims to sovereignty over the North and a political solution to be determined by the Irish themselves. Of course this is not totally even. The Irish Labour Party, despite having the aim of a democratic 32 County socialist republic enshrined in its programme, is bitterly anti-Provisional IRA much more so than Fine Gael. That affects people's views of the national struggle.

As distinct from trade union leaders in Britain and the Republic, the trade union leaders in the North are circumscribed from adopting a socialist position on the national question. For organizational reasons, they feel they cannot take any stand on Irish unity because whatever stand they took would alienate one section of their membership. Of course the practical consequence of this is to defend the status quo.

Leaders of the amalgamated unions in Ireland (pejoratively called 'British unions') have argued consistently inside those unions that the working-class movement should be internationalist. They have argued that the British working-class movement should not support the subjection of one country by another, no matter how the ruling classes of the imperial power have sought to justify it. But at the same time, those leaders have never succumbed to the narrow chauvinist demands of the more strident forms of Irish nationalism. To recognize the legitimate demand of Irish unity, independence and neutrality is an essential part of the struggle for socialism which rests on the unity of working people. I would argue that the resolution of the national question is a prerequisite for the building of a working class able to fight for socialism in Ireland.

There are forces inside and outside the Irish trade union movement who have sought a split on the border issue many times. Some sought to 'nationalize' the movement, others to 'denationalize' it. Consistent with the Unionist politicians' view that socialists in the labour movement are out of sympathy with the imperial origins of the Northern Ireland state and therefore susceptible to the demand for Irish unity, Stormont refused recognition of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions even in very mundane matters from 1921 to 1966. They objected to the refusal of the ICTU to make a formal distinction between Northern Ireland and the Republic in its organizational structures.

Even today after the formation of the Northern Ireland Committee of the ICTU, which led to its recognition, the supporters of Unionism live uneasily within the trade union movement of Ireland. On two occasions they attempted to form a break-away North of Ireland or Ulster TUC. Both times the mass of workers in Northern Ireland remained loyal to their traditional unions. A parallel movement to have the British Labour Party organize in Northern Ireland has met the same sort of response. To be fair to the trade union leaders in the North, they have opposed that, seeing that it would immediately crystallize the question of the integration of the North into Britain in an almost permanent way.

It is important that the British TUC and Labour Party should look at the total trade union and working-class view in Ireland when taking policy positions in relation to Northern Ireland. They should forget the 'white man's burden' concept. If partition went, it would completely open up the polarization of social classes in Ireland. The Northern working class which played such an important role in the creation of Irish trade unionism could begin to develop in a healthy way. It may take a while if there was any flak arising from the withdrawal process; there might be hostility between unionist and nationalist workers; but I think it would be short-lived. It would not take long for loyalist workers to find an identity with the workers of the Republic and set out to create a common political vehicle.

The age-old conflict has sustained the class enemy of ordinary people on both islands, ensuring that property, wealth and privilege would not be challenged by a politically aware working class imbued with the socialist objectives of both Kier Hardy and James Connolly, The Thatcher and Fine Gael/Labour governments are launching ever more vicious attacks on working people and their organizations. Unemployment is chronic throughout both islands and the extraordinarily high level in the North only confirms the view that this is the fag end of the United Kingdom, irrespective of the clamorous declarations of loyalty to the Crown and the Union by the Unionist phalanx in Northern Ireland.

Anti-trade union and anti-working class legislation in the areas of tax, health, social welfare, education and housing, transfer income from labour to capital. Governments increasingly intervene on the side of wealth and property against the social area of the public sector. Zero growth rates have ended the social democratic consensus they have talked about for so long. There is no 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' for Labour Party and TUC leaders any more!

In Ireland the so-called Labour Party, to its eternal shame, assists in the screwing of the Irish workers. Once the hope of the Irish working class, this party is now bereft of a political dimension; the leaders of the trade unions are appalled and endlessly talk of disaffiliation.

What does the future hold? New forms of extra-legal struggle are throwing people into conflict with the police, the courts and the state. Social insurrection and the mass revolt of the community? An explosion of crime deriving from the desperation and deprivation of the unemployed? It could very well happen that social insurrection in the Republic converge with the armed struggle in the North unless initiatives are taken quickly to break the impasse with the British government.

We must begin to pose a new dimension to the struggle for Irish unity and the economic emancipation of the workers of the whole island. A labour movement coalition of the socialist Left in Ireland and Britain could mount an effective movement to seek an early solution to this vexed question.

Workersrepublic.org Comment
Matt Merrigan was a prominent figure on the Irish left, at one time around the Trotskyists. This is included to show where he ended up politically. A political appraisal and obituary to him (he died on 15 June 2000) by DR O'Connor Lysaght is included in this site. Click here.

Back to north of Ireland


	Ireland After Labour Matt Merrigan (1985, Published by Pluto Press in a collection under this title) Matt Merrigan is District Secretary of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (known in Britain as the TGWU), and President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. He lives and works in Dublin. The great difficulty which has dogged the Irish labour movement is that trade union struggle has always been subsumed in the struggle for national independence. The last socialist influence on the trade union movement petered out when the 26 County State was formed and the middle-class nationalist movement filled the vacuum. Connolly's role in the insurrection of 1916 was the high point of organized involvement by the unions in the movement for national independence. In the period after the Rising leading up to 1922, many of the fighters on the ground were ordinary small farmers, artisans and skilled workers from the towns; but the trade union movement as such played no coherent role. The political leadership of the nation was clearly in the hands of the contending nationalist factions that led the struggle for independence, and with Connolly shot, they were dominated by the middle classes. Economic struggle was peripheral in this situation, and that has tended to be the case ever since. The Irish Labour Party formed by Connolly and Larkin out of the trade union movement was overshadowed, and even after Independence in the 1920s and 30s, it never had that conscious Marxist or socialist orientation that its founders had hoped for. To the left of the ruling party, Cumann na Gael, were the Left Nationalists of Fianna Fáil which had taken the anti-Treaty side in the War of Independence. Fianna Fáil drew its support from the small farmers and urban workers, developing a populist character like that of the Labour Party in Britain. Although it was never overtly socialist, Fianna Fáil introduced a lot of socially progressive legislation, including the first Conditions of Employment Act governing hours and conditions at work. The Irish Labour Party was politically overshadowed. In fighting for political trade unionism, Connolly faced the uphill struggle of persuading the Irish working class to set itself socialist aims in a situation where the country was subjected to the imperial rule of Westminster. If Independence had been won decades before, it might have been easier; but that struggle drained the energy of the working class which could otherwise have gone into building up a democratic Labour Party basing itself on the unions. Connolly's view was that where political hegemony was exercised by an outside power and there was no Irish political sovereignty, it was almost impossible to make economic or social progress. He felt that the anti-imperialist struggle was a prerequisite for the development of a socalist movement. Perhaps in looking back we tend to over-exaggerate his influence over what was a miniscule Labour movement at the time. But it was an evocative period. It certainly acts as a reference point for the working class today. The uniqueness of those years was a combination of an upsurge in nationalist consciousness which led to the insurrection of 1916, and the growth of 'New Unionism' where unskilled and semi-skilled workers were becoming organized for the first time. Most of the English craft unions were operating in Ireland, but the organization of general unions already sweeping through the mills and factories in England gave birth to 'New Unionism'. It was new because it was not based on craft exclusivity and was accompanied by militant recognition struggles of the fiercest kind. James Larkin came to Ireland on the crest of this wave of militancy as Irish organizer of the National Union of Dock Labourers to consolidate a base for the union. Connolly had been politically active in Ireland before and had already launched the small Irish Socialist Republican Party. From 1912 onwards he worked with Larkin to build a union movement that was strong enough to act in the interest of Irish workers. They were forced to break away from the Dock Labourers' union when its London leaders became an obstacle. The union they formed was the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. Building the union was not easy. In 1913, the Federated Employers of the day combined to break its influence, and this resulted in a lock-out and general strike of epic proportions. It lasted for eight months and although it fizzled out with no formal recognition won, the organization remained intact. It had been shown that employers couldn't break the back of the union and that was what counted. Even workers who were not involved in the strike began to organize. Once roots of the union were laid down, it grew to almost 70,000 members by the 1940s, expanding to its present size in the 1950s and 1960s. Because Ireland is a small country, even the Transport Union has never become the kind of conglomerate you have in Britain. The organizational units of the unions in Ireland remain small, and there is a much greater sense of immediacy between officials and membership. You don't get that remoteness from the membership that characterizes many British unions; the tradition of rank-and-file militancy which created the unions remains. I've stressed the negative side of the domination of the independence movement but there is another side, Like most revolutionary movements, the nationalists worked hard to build links with sympathetic radical movements and governments in other countries. The independence struggle gave an international dimension to the whole political. movement, and this has affected the unions. When the very first moves were being made to set up the Trade Union Congress at the end of the nineteenth century there were strong links being formed between the Irish workers and the European trade union centres. When the Spanish Civil War was raging, the leaders of the amalgamated unions took a progressive line, despite the hysterical campaign waged by the church against the Republican government, saying they were burning convents and hanging nuns. That feeling of internationalism is still there. Workers at Dunnes' Stores in Dublin have been fighting the most marvellous struggle against Apartheid. It is the first industrial action anywhere in the world to be taken in support of workers in South Africa. They started with daily boycotts of goods, and when the management threatened them with the sack if they didn't stop the action, they refused to budge. The young girl at the centre of the dispute had seen a circular from her union recording that Conference had decided that as far as possible they should refuse to handle South African goods. She didn't know much about the political situation, she admitted, but she was committed enough to her union to carry out policy. Since then, she has learned a lot more about Apartheid and the philosophical basis of the struggle against it. Out of loyalty to the union she found herself leading her first trade union dispute, and the first dispute in the world against Apartheid. There are lots of Latin American support organizations active in Ireland, and there is great enthusiasm for supporting the struggle of people in Nicaragua, El Salvador and the Philippines. Practically all Third World countries have trade union support groups, particularly those under totalitarian regimes where unions are outlawed. The church-based 'Trócaire' also collects money for trade union organizations, so there is consciousness-raising coming from two directions. Irish workers have a natural affinity with workers in countries that are still under foreign domination. They feel particularly strongly for people suffering under American finance stooges like the former Somoza regime in Nicaragua or the Guatemalan regime at the moment. They believe that imperialism, whether of the naked military variety, or the more subtle American multi-national variety, has no place in the world. In the peace movement too there is a feeling that imperialism is a peace hazard in the Third World. Feelings of generosity and internationalism do not extend to being conned by the EEC. It is part of the world malaise of capitalism and offers no way forward, because that system is cannibalistic: the smaller and more vulnerable states will go to the wall. This is our inescapable fate in the EEC. Before entry, our small-scale economy survived and maintained its economic sovereignty through the intensively interventionist and protective role of the state. Since entry we have lost 120,000 jobs and 40 per cent of our manufacturing base. The super levy for milk could easily add a further 30,000 to the dole queue. We have long since passed the stage of waiting to see the effects of membership; the EEC has become harmful to both the economic and political interest of Ireland. The events in Northern Ireland from 1969 onwards have created a new awareness of the role of Britain in Ireland's affairs. The weariness after the Civil War, and the emigration of the 1930s and 1940s took their toll in breaking the continuity of Connolly and Larkin. The Republican Congress of the 1930s was a short-lived attempt to give the remnants of the IRA a left orientation, but socialist organizations never really took root. The vacuum was filled by the populist Fianna Fáil. From partition until the 1970s, the outlook of Ireland's political leaders was dominated by the philosophy of Unionism. The combination of politicians who could be assembled to denounce the violence of the Provisionals had to be seen to be believed. They completely skate over the systematic persecution of the nationalist minority in the North, the degradation and human deprivation there. They not only question the struggle of a really cruelly subjected minority against a cruel unfeeling majority who have used the courts and the armed police to deny their elementary rights, but they also go on to seek to deny the effect of anti-imperialist struggles for the Irish people to be free in past years. They try to draw a fine distinction between the violence and political struggle which created the 26 County State and what they call the 'terrorism' of today. There are convoluted theories that have been erected to try to prove that the descendants of the original colonists of Northern Ireland can now accord themselves the status of a nation. It is argued that through the distillation of various traditions and religions over the centuries, this small group of colonists and their descendents now constitutes an alternative part of the Irish nation not Irish, yet not British. It is a theory of a 'two nation' Ireland. Politicians of this variety are loath to point out that the 'demand' of this semi-nation is to remain a British protectorate. Paradoxically, the only organization that attempted to fit this dichotomous concept of Irish nationhood into some kind of constitutional or political framework was Provisional Sinn Féin. In their Éire Nua policy, they envisaged four Provincial governments in a federal Ireland that would allow provinces to reflect the regional and local characteristics of the Irish people. Yet the 'two nationists' who adapted their philosophy to Unionism rejected this as a pipe dream. I understand that Sinn Féin have since dropped this policy, but at least it was an attempt to come to grips with the fact that there were regional differences and attitudes. There is not going to be an easy solution. In finding it we are going to have to confront the issues as they are today, even if that involves destroying myths, illusions and concepts on the way. One myth is the idea that in a period of economic decline Britain can remain a world power. The Tories and the patriotic wing of the Labour Party try to divert attention away from the economic and social crisis. It is understandable that Margaret Thatcher and the Tories should con the British people with a spurious scenario, but it is incomprehensible that they should have mesmerized such large sections of the Labour Party into defending British imperialist history, especially in relation to Ireland. In socialist terms, this is totally indefensible. The confused understanding of the nature of imperialism in the British Labour movement has also impaired the understanding of the British TUC and its affiliated unions – particularly those with members in Ireland – about Ireland's national question and its resolution. The Irish trade union movement encompasses within its ranks an overwhelming majority of members who you could say were broadly in favour of a united Ireland. By this they mean the ending of British claims to sovereignty over the North and a political solution to be determined by the Irish themselves. Of course this is not totally even. The Irish Labour Party, despite having the aim of a democratic 32 County socialist republic enshrined in its programme, is bitterly anti-Provisional IRA much more so than Fine Gael. That affects people's views of the national struggle. As distinct from trade union leaders in Britain and the Republic, the trade union leaders in the North are circumscribed from adopting a socialist position on the national question. For organizational reasons, they feel they cannot take any stand on Irish unity because whatever stand they took would alienate one section of their membership. Of course the practical consequence of this is to defend the status quo. Leaders of the amalgamated unions in Ireland (pejoratively called 'British unions') have argued consistently inside those unions that the working-class movement should be internationalist. They have argued that the British working-class movement should not support the subjection of one country by another, no matter how the ruling classes of the imperial power have sought to justify it. But at the same time, those leaders have never succumbed to the narrow chauvinist demands of the more strident forms of Irish nationalism. To recognize the legitimate demand of Irish unity, independence and neutrality is an essential part of the struggle for socialism which rests on the unity of working people. I would argue that the resolution of the national question is a prerequisite for the building of a working class able to fight for socialism in Ireland. There are forces inside and outside the Irish trade union movement who have sought a split on the border issue many times. Some sought to 'nationalize' the movement, others to 'denationalize' it. Consistent with the Unionist politicians' view that socialists in the labour movement are out of sympathy with the imperial origins of the Northern Ireland state and therefore susceptible to the demand for Irish unity, Stormont refused recognition of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions even in very mundane matters from 1921 to 1966. They objected to the refusal of the ICTU to make a formal distinction between Northern Ireland and the Republic in its organizational structures. Even today after the formation of the Northern Ireland Committee of the ICTU, which led to its recognition, the supporters of Unionism live uneasily within the trade union movement of Ireland. On two occasions they attempted to form a break-away North of Ireland or Ulster TUC. Both times the mass of workers in Northern Ireland remained loyal to their traditional unions. A parallel movement to have the British Labour Party organize in Northern Ireland has met the same sort of response. To be fair to the trade union leaders in the North, they have opposed that, seeing that it would immediately crystallize the question of the integration of the North into Britain in an almost permanent way. It is important that the British TUC and Labour Party should look at the total trade union and working-class view in Ireland when taking policy positions in relation to Northern Ireland. They should forget the 'white man's burden' concept. If partition went, it would completely open up the polarization of social classes in Ireland. The Northern working class which played such an important role in the creation of Irish trade unionism could begin to develop in a healthy way. It may take a while if there was any flak arising from the withdrawal process; there might be hostility between unionist and nationalist workers; but I think it would be short-lived. It would not take long for loyalist workers to find an identity with the workers of the Republic and set out to create a common political vehicle. The age-old conflict has sustained the class enemy of ordinary people on both islands, ensuring that property, wealth and privilege would not be challenged by a politically aware working class imbued with the socialist objectives of both Kier Hardy and James Connolly, The Thatcher and Fine Gael/Labour governments are launching ever more vicious attacks on working people and their organizations. Unemployment is chronic throughout both islands and the extraordinarily high level in the North only confirms the view that this is the fag end of the United Kingdom, irrespective of the clamorous declarations of loyalty to the Crown and the Union by the Unionist phalanx in Northern Ireland. Anti-trade union and anti-working class legislation in the areas of tax, health, social welfare, education and housing, transfer income from labour to capital. Governments increasingly intervene on the side of wealth and property against the social area of the public sector. Zero growth rates have ended the social democratic consensus they have talked about for so long. There is no 'beer and sandwiches at Number 10' for Labour Party and TUC leaders any more! In Ireland the so-called Labour Party, to its eternal shame, assists in the screwing of the Irish workers. Once the hope of the Irish working class, this party is now bereft of a political dimension; the leaders of the trade unions are appalled and endlessly talk of disaffiliation. What does the future hold? New forms of extra-legal struggle are throwing people into conflict with the police, the courts and the state. Social insurrection and the mass revolt of the community? An explosion of crime deriving from the desperation and deprivation of the unemployed? It could very well happen that social insurrection in the Republic converge with the armed struggle in the North unless initiatives are taken quickly to break the impasse with the British government. We must begin to pose a new dimension to the struggle for Irish unity and the economic emancipation of the workers of the whole island. A labour movement coalition of the socialist Left in Ireland and Britain could mount an effective movement to seek an early solution to this vexed question. Workersrepublic.org Comment Matt Merrigan was a prominent figure on the Irish left, at one time around the Trotskyists. This is included to show where he ended up politically. A political appraisal and obituary to him (he died on 15 June 2000) by DR O'Connor Lysaght is included in this site. Click here. Back to north of Ireland
	Any constructive comments/suggestions regarding this site? Please direct them to: Matt Kelly