Civil Rights “branches” in Britain [June 1969]
[Editor’s Note: In the aftermath of the October 1968 civil rights march in Derry and the assault on the People’s Democracy marchers at Burntollet in January, various organisations in Northern Ireland – NICRA, the Campaign for Social Justice and the People’s Democracy – either sanctioned or encouraged the setting up of support groups or “branches” in Britain, instead of urging support for the work that was already being done in that country by the Connolly Association, the CDU and others, who had been campaigning to influence the Irish policy of the British Government for years. Some of these “support groups” were seen as sources of finance for their Northern Ireland sponsors. The Connolly Association responded to this development by seeking to get a number of these bodies together in support of a national petition in support of the Bill of Rights demand. The June 1969 issue of the “Irish Democrat” carried Desmond Greaves’s article below on this development under the heading “Whither civil rights?” The paragraphs emphasised in bold are as they were in the original.]
– – –
Whither Civil Rights?
The Irish Democrat has never been enthusiastic about the setting up in Britain of branches of organisations which exist in Ireland.
This has the effect of causing divisions.
The Irish in Britain are members of the working class. It is wrong to try to split them up into Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Irish Labour, NILP, Workers’ Party and so on.
It is mistaken to have them raising in England a host of issues that only affect them when they are at home.
The most unhappy example of this is the work of the Irish Embassy, which has from time to time encouraged activities in Britain whose main purpose is electoral advantage back in Ireland.
Some people hardly think it was necessary for the NICRA to set up a branch in London. It was also mistake of the People’s Democracy to do the same. In the latter case it has led to a group of individuals boasting that they had tried to hamper another Irish organisation in its work. In the case of NICRA itself it has merely added one more to the long list of organisations, without adding a new dimension to the struggle.
That being said, the new NICRA branch, being composed of worthy individuals, must be encouraged to find his place in the solidarity movement. There must be, and there will be, no wish on anybody’s part that that should not be so.
Another problem is the stream of visitors from different sections of the civil rights movement in the Six Counties who are calling on the British Government to do different and often contradictory things, without consulting with the long-established movement in Britain over what has been tried before, who can be interested, and what is impossible in British conditions.
This has resulted in the setting up of a number of committees in different parts of Britain which have different and often mutually contradictory programmes.
The purpose of this article is to see if in the welter of contrary policy it is possible to envisage any firm ground we can work to, and to put out for discussion what that firm ground might be.
There is no intention of influencing the actions of any individual or organisation in its work within Northern Ireland. It is written from the point of view of those operating in Britain and trying to influence the actions of the British Government.
The British Government is responsible for the rules of the political game that is being played in the Six Counties, and for that reason all residents of Britain and entitled to have a say in what the British Government does, and how it does it.
There have been a number of demands for British Government intervention since last January.
For example, during the Belfast-Derry march messages were sent demanding that British troops should protect the marchers.
A demand was made that the British Government should suspend Stormont and rule through the Governor-General.
Another demand was made that the “constitution” should be suspended and Britain rule directly through a “commissioner”. This was obviously borrowed from what Stormont did in Derry.
Others demanded that the British Government should compel the Six County Government to grant the demands of the civil rights movement, but they do not say exactly what should be done, and how the compulsion is to be effected.
Others talk as if the British Government was a friend of Ireland. They advocate energetic measures, sit-ins, occupations and so on, believing that if this is done the British Government will “have to do something”. They fail to say what. And they miss the point that the British Government may not do what they want. They may move the opposite way!
What does all this amount to? It means we’ve got to make up our minds what we want and press for that.
Here are a few criticisms of some of the things proposed above.
None of them, no, not a single one, can be carried out by administrative action.
Why not? Because the Government of Ireland Act says otherwise. Before the British Government can perform administrative actions in the field of internal democracy in the Six Counties, another Act of Parliament has to be passed, amending or repealing the Government of Ireland Act and putting something else in its place.
Of course, some people might say that if Britain refused to pay back taxes collected in Northern Ireland the Stormont regime would have to toe the line.
Well, what if they didn’t? More dole-queues? More farmers emigrating? Where is the sense of asking for punishment when you can get legislation? For while people talk of stopping Stormont’s money, others are asking for grants and loans to ease the plight of industry.
It can be taken that any intervention from Westminster will have to be legislative if it is not to be confined to tea-time talks with Chichester- Clark.
So suspending the Constitution means amending the Government of Ireland Act. Putting in a commissioner or ruling through the Governor-General means amending the Government of Ireland Act. So would sending troops against Paisleyites if that were for a minute thought desirable. And even if the whole of England was “occupied” from Berwick-on-Tweed to Belerion, and the British Government decided to “do something”, that “something” would involve amending the Government of Ireland Act.
Another point. Regarding “direct rule”, many Catholics in 1799 supported the Union because they thought England would rescue them from Castlereagh. They spent 120 years trying to reverse what was done then. That point is worth thinking about. Scotland and Wales do not seem to think much of “Government from a distance”, not the distance of Whitehall.
It could well be that under “direct rule” of Whitehall things would be worse, because the rulers “couldn’t care less”.
Let us therefore take it that there is no escape from the logical position founded on the law as it exists.
The law is the Government of Ireland Act. If you want to change the law, you must change the Government of Ireland Act.
And now we come to the delightfully baby-simple solution to the whole problem.
Let us have the Government of Ireland Act amended. Let us leave out of it the things we don’t want and put into the things we do want.
It is as simple as that. Geoffrey Bing, former Attorney-General of Ghana, the Irishman who is recognised as one of the world’s greatest constitutional lawyers, has stated that this action, first proposed by the Connolly Association, is legally sound. The Government of Ireland Act is so drawn that another Act could be passed to cut out the bad, or at least the worst, and put in the good if not the best.
So in the name of everything sensible, what are we waiting for? If you want intervention from Britain, that’s the way to get it. It is necessary, as the Act has the amended whatever you want afterwards. And it is possible. You can put what you want into it.
Concretely, What should be done? A Bill should be introduced at Westminster that would amend certain sections of the Government of Ireland Act. This would leave Stormont there but alter its powers.
There is a section of the Act which forbids legislation designed for religious discrimination. This must be altered to make all religious discrimination illegal, whether it is legislated or not. A few words would do that.
There are provisions allowing the Six County Government to decide its own electoral methods. The section that contains them should be re-written to insist that electoral methods should be fair by British standards – we would like to see proportional representation restored, but would be content to accept a position no worse than that in England.
There is a section giving Stormont powers to pass legislation relating to public order, to give such and such powers to the police, and so on. This can be re-written so that the Special Powers Act, Public Order Bill, Defence of Employment Act and Flags and Emblems Act are automatically placed ultra vires, that is to say, beyond the powers of the Six County Government.
But by means of an amendment to the Government of Ireland Act it is possible to strike at the root of the whole trouble caused by Partition.
We think the United Ireland Association [i.e. A successor group of what had been the Anti-Partition League in the late 1940s, supported by the Irish Embassy] was mistaken to set up a committee with mixed aims “for Irish unity and civil rights in Northern Ireland”. It is like having ice-cream with the soup. Better to follow the meal through with the soup first and the coffee at the end.
But they are right in thinking that civil rights in the Six Counties are inextricably bound up with Partition.
This is the connection as we see it. There are a number of democratic rights which are not civil rights in the narrow sense of the word. Indeed, we confess we do not like the phrase “civil rights”, as it excludes rights affecting sovereignty and territory.
This point is best explained by an example. Suppose a Republican wants to go up for Stormont. His programme is an Irish Republic. This means that he seeks popular support for banishing the Queen of England from Ireland and merging the Six Counties with the rest of Ireland.
He could go up with that programme in England. But in the Six Counties he cannot. He must sign that if elected he will take his seat in Stormont and swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen of England. Before he can stand for Parliament our Republican has got to tear up his own programme.
But there’s worse. Suppose he gets there nonetheless, for example by swearing, but invoking the well-known doctrine that oaths under duress are not binding.
Indeed, suppose more. Suppose a majority of Republicans are returned. They still can’t carry out their programmes. Under Article 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, England reserves total sovereignty over “every person, matter and thing”. And the second section of the Act forbids even Stormont from making a trade treaty with the rest of Ireland.
What does this mean? It means that Republicans are told from the start that even if they get a majority for it, they will not be allowed to carry out their programme. This is a direct invitation to them to think about the gun. As long as there is no right of secession there will be the danger of the gun in Northern Ireland politics.
And the way to change that is to amend Article 75 itself, by providing that Westminster will give up its overall control as soon as there is a government in the Six Counties that wants it to do so. Section four can be changed to give the Six Counties the right to sign trade treaties and appoint representatives abroad and merge services with Dublin. This last power was in the Government of Ireland Act when it was passed but was taken out later.
The “Irish Democrat”, the first newspaper to publish this suggestion some months ago, called such a Bill to amend the Government of Ireland Act a Bill of Rights.
It would guarantee democracy. And though it would not in itself do away with Partition, it would confer the right to do away with Partition. Over a period of years the now equal communities in the Six Counties would get to know each other, and hatred would decline. The Labour and trade union movement, always hindered by an atmosphere of sectarian hatred, would become stronger. The sane atmosphere created would be one in which North and South grew together. And finally partition would be ended.
Naturally, it will take time to get such a Bill through. It was. It is being drafted at this minute by Geoffrey Bing, and Paul Rose [Labour MP for Manchester Blackley and leading light in the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster(CDU)] and Fenner Brockway are going to push it.
In the meantime, of course, the people in the Six Counties must be protected as much as possible. Protests against the behaviour of the Six County regime are very necessary.
But there is one fair certainty. The Unionists will only behave themselves in order to ward off British intervention. A strong united campaign of Irish organisations, and the British Labour and progressive movement, for a Bill of Rights, clipping the wings of the Unionist backwoodsman but broadening the scope of the powers available to democrats, would be the biggest possible single factor in protecting the people of the Six Counties who have shown such fortitude and heroism in the past year.