Towards social politics – Bert Ward

A working class Englishman from the North East, Bert Ward has been involved with Irish issues since 1972, firstly with the Communist Party and latterly through independent inter-party initiatives like the New Dialogue group. Here he begins by describing his journey from being broadly supportive of the Sinn Fein view of Irish British relations, to becoming a proactive advocate of the Union.

How did you first become involved Irish issues?

In the Labour movement, we never heard anything from the Unionists, so their point of view was never ever expressed. You can�t really have a rational discussion of a problem if you only hear one side, and the only side that we were hearing was that it was all the fault of the British. In fact it was simply the Provisional IRA�s point of view, or the anti-imperialists� point of view, which is traditionally that of the British Labour movement. I was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. I became involved with the issue of Ireland in 1972 when I was on a delegation from the London District Committee of the Communist Party, at the invitation of the Communist Party of Ireland and we spent a weekend in Belfast. I was horrified at what went on and I said that I would do whatever I could to help. The only reading I�d been doing from 1972 onwards was from the left perspective. So I was being given the point of view that the British occupied Northern Ireland for two reasons. One was to protect British capitalist profits and the other one was for defence reasons. Simultaneously they would say Ireland had right to self-determination, and then that the Irish people had the right to self-determination, as if these two things were the same, when in actual fact they�re not. A nation or a country can have the right to self-determination, but that doesn�t necessarily mean that the people have the right to self-determination. If you think about any dictatorship you could take Iraq as an example today, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Afghanistan had the right to self-determination but it was exercised by the Taleban. But then what rights to self-determination could women have in Afghanistan? The right of a country to self-determination always has limitations placed upon it.

What does the Union mean to you?

I would say that the Union for me is a felt perception, rather than something intellectual. Something that�s a part of me, like the Scots and the Welsh are. As if we all part of a family. For people on the political left, you think why should working men and women vote Unionist because Unionists are Conservatives? Over here you go on the council estates for example, and they are solidly Labour, they would never dream of voting Conservative. In Northern Ireland they seem to be voting Conservative but they are not voting for the economic and social programme of the Unionists; they�re voting for it on a specific issue and that is remaining part of the United Kingdom.

How has the Union affected everyday life?

There was discrimination against Catholics. That, I would say, has gone, so in the past it affected day to day life in Northern Ireland in one way, today it will affect it in another. Then you�ve got the violence of the Provisional IRA trying to change it, so that would affect every day life in terms of people being killed and mutilated and the destruction of property, the consequences for the economy.

Surely the Provisional IRA has not been the only source of violence?

The violence of the Provisionals also creates violence from Loyalists, so one thing generates the other. They really got organised in paramilitary organisations since the Provos came into being at the end of 1969 and 1970. From the point of view of Loyalists�, Protestants are losing and Catholics are gaining – therefore it would be necessary for them to engage in violence because it seems that the British government only responds to violence. They think, since the British government isn�t going to defend the Union, then we�ll defend it. You get these attacks on individual Catholics, and Catholic families living in Protestant areas, to drive them out. As they see the Catholics expanding in areas and Protestants getting pushed back or moving back, then the fears this generates drives them into irrational conduct.

What would you say were the essential elements of the Unionist political agenda?

It�s a mechanism in that it�s a means to an end. On the other hand, it does have an underlying political philosophy, founded in the English Revolution of 1688 which established the supremacy of Parliament and our unwritten constitution – so it�s a process of the evolution of the British constitution. I would say that is the Unionist political philosophy, as opposed to the Irish Republic, which is a Catholic state. Its underlying political philosophy would be democratic but they were pushed into a situation where they acted in a certain way in order to preserve the Union. Here I would go back to Walter Bagehot who wrote The English Constitution in 1867, in which he says the British monarch reigns but does not rule. I would paraphrase that in terms of Northern Ireland, that the British government reigns but does not rule. Now it does, but up to 1972 when they closed down Stormont, the British government reigned but it didn�t rule. It passed ruling over to the people of Northern Ireland which meant the majority. So the Unionists, in order to preserve the Union, did it in the way that think they could preserve it. That was the fault line I think. If the British government had ruled Northern Ireland as it ruled England, Scotland and Wales, then the Civic Rights Movement would never have occurred because everybody would have had civil rights. The Unionists would have been confident that Northern Ireland remained part of the Union. It�s the reaction by people like Paisley against the Civil Rights Movement that resulted in the violence from which the Provisional IRA emerged. If the British had governed Northern Ireland as a part of the UK, I don�t think the Provisional IRA would ever have existed.

What�s the essential strength of being ruled under the Union as opposed to the Republic?

When I became involved in politics and trade union affairs, there was an organisation called Catholic Action, and trade unionists who were Catholics were being told how to vote in elections and were being told by the Catholic church. This is the church intervening in politics, whereas they should be concerned with the spiritual side of people�s lives and not getting involved and showing people how to vote. You can see on the Continent where they have political parties based on that and you�ve got that in Ireland as well.

What are its key strengths and weaknesses?

Its key strength is that it�s a single issue. Its key weakness is that it�s divisive. First of all it�s divisive in terms of a means of protecting the Union so Unionists are divided. It�s also divisive in terms of identity, are you Irish or are you British? It�s also divisive in terms of social class and religion. It organises people on this single issue from different social classes who would vote in different ways if it weren�t that they were working on this single issue. Then key weakness is religion because it�s identified with one religion when religion shouldn�t really be an issue in politics.

What Unionism can do to strengthen or address those weaknesses?

If they say they are a part of the Union with Great Britain, then they�ve got to accept the political institutions and that means accepting the political parties. That would mean the British parties, Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Party, should be allowing people in Northern Ireland to join. That would create the opportunity for people to organise on a social class basis. I went to interview one of the paramilitaries somewhere up the Shankill Road, and I asked him �how would you describe yourself?� and he said �I�m a socialist�. I asked him how he�d define socialism and he said things like housing, education, the National Health Service. He didn�t have a one sentence philosophy, but he thought in terms of social and economic issues. The Conservatives would be arguing for reductions in wages, where the socialists would be arguing for increases in wages, the problem with unemployment, for example. He�s tied in to a political party, which is actually not going to address his concerns, given that it�s really a Conservative party.

Do you think they could sell that to their constituency?

Not if you put it in that way. Why should Ian Paisley, for example, disband the DUP if he�s going to lose power? I think he would prefer you kept the DUP irrespective of the consequences of that. But they don�t need to argue for their own abolition. If the Labour party and Conservative party organise, the conditions would be created in which the old party�s would wither away. The Conservative party would be in competition with the Unionist party, whereas the Labour party wouldn�t really be in competition with anybody. I know that Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair have argued the SDLP is our sister party, but that is nonsense. I don�t know whether you are familiar with the Cabinet papers of 30 years ago in which it�s revealed that Hume said ��don�t worry about Labour and the SDLP, they�ve got nothing to do with Labour. That�s only in the title to placate Paddy Devlin and Gerry Fitt�. Simultaneously the Labour party are saying the SDLP is Labour, well somebody�s telling lies.

What would you say are the essential differences between Unionism and Irish Nationalism?

The Nationalists have an ideology that we�ve got to unite Ireland. I don�t think the Unionists see that as an ideology, they would be pragmatic rather than ideological. �We�ve got the Union, it�s a part of the UK and we are going to preserve it�. Whereas the Republicans and Nationalists have to argue a case for the re-unification of Ireland, so they had this ideological argument that they�d been dominated by an imperial power, Britain�s last colony, that kind of thing.
Are the terms �British� and �Irish� complimentary or mutually exclusive?
The Nationalists have made them exclusive by campaigning for a united Ireland and saying that people in Northern Ireland are Irish, even while people in Northern Ireland say they are British, so there�s a confusion. British is a term that I would always have used in the past about myself. If I applied for a passport or any document where my nationality had to be written in, I always wrote British. It didn�t occur to me to write English. I think the Scottish and Welsh people would have done the same, but it may be that the rise of Nationalist feelings that people are now writing in Scottish and Welsh and English – subtle changes taking place over here. Some people in Northern Ireland will say I�m Irish but I�m also British. This Loyalist would say he was British but he wouldn�t say he was Irish.

How important is religion to the Ulster Unionist identity?

I think it�s important in religious terms. It shouldn�t be important in political terms, but unfortunately it is. Religion has been attached to politics with the consequence that it becomes divisive. Even McGuinness has said that inter-education would be a good thing. Stop children from being divided from each other when kids who were Catholics can grow up and say they�ve never met a Protestant. We�ve got it now with Islam against Christianity. It really does set people against each other.

Is it possible for Unionism to appeal across the religious divide?

I think that in Northern Ireland there are Catholics who will vote to remain in the United Kingdom. In that sense, depending on how you define Unionism in this respect, of saying Unionism is just for the union with Britain, then it could because there are Catholics who would vote to remain in the UK, so the answer to that I would say is Yes.

Who are these pro-Union Catholics?

I don�t know what the proportions are but I would have thought that the proportion had declined because with the violence, they are pushed into where they�ve got to take sides. When we look back to the 1962 campaign of the IRA, they didn�t have support from the Catholic population and they had to pack it in. For economic reasons those Catholics would have been prepared to stay in the UK. It may be that there are Catholics who are so appalled at what Republicans have done, that they would feel safer if they could get the Republicans off their back and so they would vote Unionist not to do that. But I can�t say that there�s a great deal of evidence for that.

And what about the longer term?

The Provo policy became declaration of intent by the British to withdraw on a specific date. In the meantime, the British government would initiate reforms within Northern Ireland, which would unite the working class and then in 5 years� time they would all vote for a united Ireland. But that�s nonsense � they can bring in measures which aim at bringing about a united Ireland, then Unionists will not partake in those measures. In 5 years� time you�d be in the same position that you were 5 years before. At one time, Labour party policy was reform and harmonisation towards a united Ireland. Mo Mowlam was a signatory to that and so was Kevin McNamara. But in private he ridiculed it. He said that it wouldn�t come about and therefore what should happen was the British and Irish government should establish joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland and that would lead to a United Ireland in 20 years� time. It�s my opinion that Europe will become a federation, perhaps not in 20 years, but that would be the direction. The relationship with the Republic will be based on harmony rather than unity. Will the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish consider they would be better served as one state within the European community or the evolving federation? I think they will. If the Irish government are as they are now, separate from Britain, then they won�t have the bargaining power that they would have if we were one state within a federation. That�s only my opinion of course, but they are going to have to face up to the world. If you get back to this national self-determination then I don�t see any alternative to a federation.

In what ways should Unionism seek to engage wider relationships in a changing world?

One of the ways I think it�s doing it now is to have offices in other parts of the world. Whereas the Provisionals had supporters and offices here in Britain and the USA and were collecting money and so forth, the Unionists weren�t doing anything like that. But now they are and they�ve got the friends of the Union on this side of the water and friends of the Union in the USA. They could get involved in issues, which are international. You can think of civil and human rights for example.

That�s not something that Unionism has traditionally associated with.

No, that�s right, but it is something they should accept. That is an internal discussion. Trimble did say when he went � the Nobel Prize � Protestants have kept a cold house for Catholics. He has made efforts. He meets people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic but this is one person doing it. To what extent the Unionists do it � I don�t know. Trade unionists who vote Unionist should be voting for changes in other respects, equal civil rights would be an example.

How, if at all, do you think the various independent strands of unionism might be reconciled?

When it becomes clear beyond doubt that the Union is safe, that�s when they become reconciled and then I think they would divide along class lines as in Great Britain. At the moment the division is vertical, I think that once they become reconciled they can become horizontal.