The “Inside Craic” On The Peace Talks And GFA – According To Sean Lynch

Robert Emmet 1916 Society Lisnaskea ✏ So, its official now, thirty years of armed struggle, deaths, jail time and hunger strikes were for ‘peace’.

Repeated by Sean Lynch in a recent YouTube video recording.

But better still, the pacification process - sorry, sorry “peace process” - was an ‘honourable, strategic compromise’….and ‘we didn’t get Anything we wanted.. (read: we got nothing) !! His words. But hold on, hold on, there’s more. We got nothing but it ‘brought us to the next level’, according to Sean. Now there’s an interesting strategically political analysis that the great, historical, revolutionary thinkers would surely be kicking themselves that they never thought of. But all is not lost, there is hope, according to this narrative. Indeed ‘hope for future generation’s’, that’s a big one.

Now, lets re-cap, this is complex. We got nothing but it brought us to the next level. So far so good. The next bit is key: we are at some other level and we got nothing, however, we Did get ‘sufficient guarantees. ’ Aha, now we are getting places. Sufficient guarantees of what, Sean, we might be forgiven for asking? Well, he developed that point. According to Sean we got sufficient guarantees of equality. Right, ok, interesting. And, power sharing – right, with anyone in particular? And peace (again) and peace building (money?), and working together (who with?) He stated that these were the ‘key aspects’….what? Hold on, did we miss something there?

Something is not adding up here. We always thought that the thirty year armed struggle in the six counties was about ending British imperialism . . . in all of Ireland? And that the outcome was an end to partition and an Irish Socialist Republic? Surely, Sean, you know that? Sure, its there, in black and white in the IRA constitution, in the green book; which no doubt you read or were, at the very least, briefed on? And from the time of Wolfe Tone until 1998 that has always been the case. Except when the pro-Treatyites sold out in 1922, the Stickies in the ‘60’s. But then that’s different, isn’t it?

Instead, he says, SF got ‘sufficient guarantees’… British ones. Equality? But there is no equality Sean. Poverty, homelessness, health care, food bank growth, welfare, are all worse than in the 1960’s Civil Rights era. The distribution of wealth is increasingly in the favour of the powerful and wealthy. Ask any worker, local small business or small to medium farmer. Do we have equality in policing ? Ask the families of those slaughtered by British forces and their agents. Do we have equality in democracy or politics? Ask the 50% of the electorate who see no point in voting. How would we? We are ruled by a wealthy British ruling elite that cares less about the people of the six counties and gives them the crumbs from the master's table. You should know that Sean, you were in their ‘puppet parliament’ up at the big house on the hill. Just blaming the Tories, Sean, doesn’t cut the mustard at all.

As for power sharing Sean, a simple question, how many years was the house on the hill not working and why? Odd you didn’t mention that as an obstacle to peace? Some ‘working together process’ that eh? A great example of the ‘key aspects’, including ‘peace’ and the next level of ‘peace building’ that would inspire hope for generations to come. Surely a great legacy to be proud of and very ‘beneficial to Irish Society’.

And then you spring a surprise on us Sean. The Tories . . . .aah the poor auld Tories get blamed for everything. But, lo and behold, the treacherous Tories were an obstacle to peace, according to Sean. Surely that cannot be right. What about the ‘sufficient guarantees’ you mentioned earlier as justification for ending the war and getting into bed, no, getting into negotiations with the treacherous British? Did Sinn Fein give the Tories a by ball that they didn’t have to play the ‘peace game’? Was this the ‘honourable strategic compromise’ part of it. Or were they playing the real game? Then the ‘pesky Unionists’ had to get in on the anti-peace game too. Their gripe was they couldn’t handle constitutional change or worse ‘a referendum (must be the all-Ireland one), and it coming closer’. Aren’t those Unionists the head bangers, they are pro-union and they are against a referendum on Irish Unity . . . and it only around the corner? Incredulous, how ungrateful can you be?

You said there’s an ‘..allowance for a referendum on Irish Unity..’ in the GFA ? Who is allowing this referendum Sean? What is the path there? What are the parameters, when or how is that referendum set in motion, after now 30 years? Maybe you could deal with that in your next video?

Surprisingly, the biggest offenders of all against the ‘process of peace’ and ‘.. resistant to change..’ are those devilish, dissidents who have no support…they are the boyos. If they have no support, how would they be any real threat to peace or change or anything? Thatcher used to say the IRA had no support either. The British, American, EU and Dublin governments used to say similar nasty things about the then Republican Movement from the ‘70’s to the ‘90’s…..1998 to be precise. Its odd that, that you can be a vile terrorist one day and the next a lovable political saint. And its funny that a few years ago….thirty or so….the IRA and Sinn Fein were clearly dissenters (read dissidents) from British rule and Dublin. But back to ‘todays dissidents’….sure they have ‘no support’…and are ‘resistant to change’ and yet they are working within their communities for real transformative change in all of the island of Ireland? But sure, they got a wee mention at least. The damn thing about them dissidents is that, they keep shouting The Emperor Has No Clothes!!!

And some of them dissident bucks are not a bit late either. They sort of know the craic, they’ve seen it all before. They know stuff and they are devils for pointing out the obvious, and often, the not so obvious. Things like how British imperialism, and other imperialisms, have colonised and subjugated (killed) people all over the world, and Ireland, for things like oil, minerals, cheap manufacturing and even to control new markets for their products. All in the name of world order, democracy and peace, you understand. Some of them dissidents even know about the causes of poverty, such as inequality and exploitation. They know about low wages, zero hour contracts, causes of homelessness, a deliberately destroyed health service, cost of education, food banks growth, climate destruction and so on. The ‘cute hoors’ know about bringing the working class together to struggle to build an Ireland where workers, the poor and working poor, are in control of their lives and have an on-going, day to day, democratic input into how the country would governed by the people, for the people. Then they (Dissidents) lay the blame, for the increasingly desparate state of people’s lives, at the door of a governing system that is only 250 years old, namely, capitalism. You know, the exploitative system that fills the coffers of the powerful and wealthy, at the expense of the poor and working poor. But that’s ‘old hat’ Sean, sure you would have studied all that stuff in jail.

However, in spite of the destructive Tories, nonsensical Unionists and the devilish dissidents, Sinn Fein has ‘overcome most challenges’, he says. They might well have temporarily deflected some challenges for now but what are the solid achievements to show, after thirty years of war and another thirty years full of the promises of peace and prosperity? We await the list. Anyway, Sean says that, the GFA will bring constitutional change, but no definition of what that constitutional change will be. Even after 60 years of struggle.

Just flashed into our minds there: what sort of constitutional change does Sinn Fein actually call for publicly? What sort of “New Ireland” is Sinn Fein envisioning? Hardly one that secures the wealth and power of the ruling class or corporate Ireland that Pearse Doherty was talking about? Or would it be the Ireland clearly outlined in the IRA constitution or indeed the 1916 Proclamation? Will the lives of the 99% of the population, the poor and working poor, be transformed in this “New Ireland”? Incidentally, Sean says ‘partition was bad for us’ !! A bit of an under-statement that. However, it will not only be partition that will be bad for us if Pearse Doherty’s version of the New Corporate Ireland unfolds.

The turning point, it appears, for the war to end was the ‘ceasefire and the GFA’. A ceasefire ‘which brought all parties to the table’ according to Seans version of events. But the ceasefire ‘wasn’t in isolation’. This is getting complicated again. Apparently, we are told, there were years of behind the scenes and secret preparations to end the war. Nothing much new in this revelation as all kinds of writers and historians have been talking and writing about ‘back channels’ for years. We were just wondering would the conditioning for this New Ireland have started as far back as 1972, when Willie Whitelaw met the Provisional IRA leaders of the day, including one Gerry Adams, in Cheyne Walk in England. Hardly, nah, too far-fetched that one. Sadly, though, we don’t have the records of All of the secret meetings and back channels from 1972 to the present. But who knows, what will eventually fall out of the sky.

In any event, Sean says, the ‘leadership realised that no side was going to win’. Wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure that out. The volunteers at the coal face could clearly see that as far back as 1976. From the IRA perspective the war was sporadic and had a very high volunteer attrition rate through jails and executions. The boat loads of weapons didn’t exactly transform the war from an IRA position either. Wonder was it supposed to? But, the Hunger Strikes did create a new political playing field. And Adams and company exploited it to the full. And we now know where that went and is going, as sure as day follows night.

All of this meant, Sean states, that the ‘only road out of conflict was a negotiated settlement’. A fairly normal human way to try to resolve most conflicts. The only road, we seriously doubt that? And then the question arises, what exactly were/are the terms and conditions of this, negotiated settlement? What exactly were the leadership promised to call a ceasefire in the first place? With Blair, Clinton and the Dublin government controlling the show we can see fairly clearly the way the ‘compromise(s) and ‘framework’, ensured where the eventual settlement was certainly Not going. A very big compromise indeed. Ah yes, there is a framework alright, to get to an ‘agreed’, ‘shared’ or ‘United Ireland’ – as long as the ruling status quo is not demolished. Not what volunteers died and went to jail for. Bobby Sands, among many others, was clear on the sort of a 32 county Republic he was fighting for.

Then the interesting question of ‘who is vital to peace building’ was asked by the interviewer. This prompted the response of a ‘reconciliation between opponents’ – which ones exactly? He went on to say it was necessary to be ‘building relations across Ireland’ - for the New Ireland, whatever that will be. You also have to ‘understand where other people are coming from’, ‘even if you don’t agree with them’ he says. Now we are sucking diesel. Mandela was even quoted, ‘you build peace not only with your friends but also with your opponents’. And does that include the devilish dissidents, anti-imperialists and Socialist Republicans Sean? The nonsensical unionists and treacherous Brits will certainly be included, no problem there. But we were just asking for a friend.

He says that, ‘all sorts of people joined the IRA’ and they saw it as a ‘liberation struggle’. Sounds a bit radical and Revolutionary - that’s dangerous sort of language. Of course, a liberation struggle is an anti-imperialist, proletarian, class struggle, that ends capitalism, to be replaced with Socialism. And we certainly haven’t heard this type of language from SF in many a long year but maybe you could enlighten us. We may well have missed it.

Another important ‘key point’ was ‘negotiating (with the brits) at the right time’ for ‘a peaceful, democratic way forward’ because of ‘guarantees that would deliver a United Ireland’. Now what could that mean we wonder? This is certainly the inside craic because we never heard of such definitive guarantees and we doubt if anyone else has. Are the unionists aware of these so-called guarantees for a United Ireland? Somebody better wire them off. And on the right time to negotiate - thirty years later, what’s the hold-up Sean? Though, in fairness you did say that thirty years later ‘the process is still developing’ and has ‘a way to go’. Quite, Sean, quite, we get that bit.

Then up comes the Brexit bombshell. It ‘speeded the whole process up’ Sean says. We can only assume he means it jumpstarted the earlier mentioned ‘framework’ or ‘allowed referendum’ for a “United Ireland”. In fact, the Brexit disaster has only theoretically and on paper moved the customs border for trade. It hasn’t exactly advanced a removal of the real political border. Brexit was useful for the Shinners to say that, wink, wink, nod, nod, the border is away. Stay with us voters we are getting there. And for Unionists the Brexit phantom sea border was a rallying point for ‘not an inch’ vote for us. The old faithful election sectarian head count tactic.

Not forgetting, of course, that Brexit is a row between the Western capitalists, with the Yanks taking advantage too. So, we seriously doubt that Brexit, no matter about phantom borders, will be of any material benefit to the working class and small farmers of Ireland. And looking for assistance from Europe to move the SF strategic compromise forward, is a race to the bottom for the Irish people. The EU, the same one that has lumbered generations of Irish people with the banks gambling debts, already has an economic strangle hold on the 26 counties. So, the plan is to ask them to impoverish the working class of the whole island, in the fabled New Ireland? A great strategic compromise that would be, for sure.

All in all, the Inside Craic on the processing of peace really tells us nothing that we didn’t know already. From our perspective anyone who wouldn’t want peace and real transformative change to the material conditions of, the lives and well-being, of the people of Ireland, is badly out of touch with reality. Despite what Sean thinks. But statements like ‘honourable strategic compromises’, ‘sufficient guarantees of equality’, some kind of unspecified ‘frameworks’ and ‘negotiating at the right time’ portrayed as ‘key points’ in achieving the thirty-two county Socialist Republic and smashing capitalism and their imperialisms in Ireland, is really hot air Sean. And is the worst kind of politically dangerous hot air at that, for the 99%, that is the working class in Ireland.

Just to finish Sean, we thought it extremely remiss of you not to mention the fact that Volunteer Seamus McElwain was executed in cold blood a few yards from where you were injured beside Roslea. You described it as ‘a shooting incident’? It was an IRA operation Sean. Did you forget about that and Seamus? Were you told not to say it? Or are you afraid it might be an embarrassment now? Maybe the hefty pension might be affected? Anyway, we will leave it at that for now.