Why are the British still in Ireland?

[Grayflier]

This question came about from another thread on Does Britain have any strategic interest in Ireland? And this made me think of the time a non-Irish friend of mine once asked me why Britain was so obstinate in its involvement in Ireland to the detriment of the country and its people, with the numerous uprisings and rebellions against British rule, and with the brutal and bloody history of British involvement and military suppression of Irish nationalists in the 20th century alone. The British obviously were not very welcome in Ireland, so he asked again, why did they persist in military occupation and dominion of the country or part thereof? What did the British really want in Ireland?

So I said, trying to give him a concise answer within a broad and non-detailed historical view, that it was basically because Ireland had the misfortune to be on Britain's western flank and that they, the British, had since the Middle Ages seen Ireland as a possible staging ground or route for an invasion of Britain from the west if Ireland were invaded and occupied by a country hostile to Britain, e.g. France, Spain, or take your pick. So they, the British, had got in first and invaded and occupied and made various attempts at colonising Ireland with people on whom the British thought they could rely to remain loyal to the British state, and this was done under a political-military programme of 'national unification' in which all the countries surrounding England, but not on continental Europe, would be brought in and incorporated in this supranational British state under England's hegemony (which also satisfied a more elemental English desire for national conquest). He was partly satisfied with this strategic-imperialist reason, but it wasn't as full an explanation as he would have liked. I thought some more...

Then I offered an additional reason that the British had tried to force the Irish to go along with their supranational state idea but the Irish only wanted to recover their national independence and sovereignty and not be forcibly incorporated into a British state and they, the Irish, only wanted to be separated from it. And with this, I ventured to explain the basic difference between nationalist and unionist positions: nationalists deny the possibility and existence of any so-called British nation and see the British state as composed of separate nations, English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish of the presently British-occupied and -ruled six north-eastern counties of Ireland, all of whom have the right, indeed the need, to national self-determination, independence, and sovereignty; unionists see themselves as not only politically united into a unitary and centralised British state but also see themselves as forming a part of a British nation which transcends national borders within the Union and, though ethnically distinct, are elements of a collective and organic whole which they define as 'British' or the 'British nation'. (Indeed, many unionists of a more historical-British-imperial bent, which are most unionists in both Ireland and Britain, extend the concept of the 'British nation' to include Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and anglophone South Africans as consanguine nations of British descent.)

However, the Irish, as well as some other nationalists within the United Kingdom, have never acceded to or accepted this very abstract idea of a 'British' collective whole or 'British nation' but have steadfastly maintained a separate identity, and this is another and very real basis of British antipathy towards the Irish nation which had manifested itself in the many clashes over the centuries and generations, and in the struggle for the Irish nation's independence and sovereignty. All this in addition to the strategic-imperialist reason given first. This with the first reason he found more satisfactory, but still not completely satisfactory. I must admit when I think of both these reasons they are not completely satisfactory for me either. But are there any more?

So in order to arrive at more satisfactory conclusions to these questions, can you please help me flesh out these answers and add to them so as to give a fuller range of reasons for the persistence of British involvement in Ireland? More thoughts and concrete conclusions on the subject would be good. Think of it as a forensic exercise and we are trying to find as many motives as possible.

[JSE]

So in order to arrive at more satisfactory conclusions to these questions, can you please help me flesh out these answers and add to them so as to give a fuller range of reasons for the persistence of British involvement in Ireland? More thoughts and concrete conclusions on the subject would be good. Think of it as a forensic exercise and we are trying to find as many motives as possible.Why was your friend not satisfied with the answers you came up with? They seem quite sufficient for explaining a.) British colonialism, b) the resultant friction.

[Grayflier]

He seemed to think that there were more emotionally tribal or atavistic reasons behind British involvement in Ireland. Perhaps my brief description/analysis was too coldly factual or clinical. He was astonished, in fact shocked is a better word, at the virulence and stridently hate-filled or malicious tone of some British/unionist literature he had read concerning Irish history that had been published during some very intense times in the North in the late 1970s. He had approached the whole question of British involvement in Ireland with the not unreasonable attitude of why are the British in Ireland against the clear wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people, as many non-Irish people do.

[JSE]

He seemed to think that there were more emotionally tribal or atavistic reasons behind British involvement in Ireland.States never act from such motives. It seems your friend propbably doesn't understand the mechanics of the world?

Perhaps my brief description/analysis was too coldly factual or clinical.But that is the view from the Foreign Office. Policy is not driven by emotion.
He was astonished, in fact shocked is a better word, at the virulence and stridently hate-filled or malicious tone of some British/unionist literature he had read concerning Irish history that had been published during some very intense times in the North in the late 1970s. While policy is cooly based on analysis of realites, its implemenation must involve rehtoric and propaganda because most people are moved by the passions rather than reason. The latter requires a great deal of training. Far easier to whip up anti-Irish sentiment, than to try and explain the delicacies of strategic interest.

[Milesian]

He was astonished, in fact shocked is a better word, at the virulence and stridently hate-filled or malicious tone of some British/unionist literature he had read concerning Irish history that had been published during some very intense times in the North in the late 1970s.
The same patronising and mocking tones can be found in "British" literature" about Ireland and the Irish going back centuries (and indeed can still be found to a lesser degree today even involving Scotland and Wales). The typical stereotype of the Irish as childish, feckless, backward, emotional drunks is largely based on such British Imperial views.
As has been said before, when you are colonising a people, appropriating their land and attempting to destroy their language, culture and identity then it is important to demonise and de-humanise them.
The British have often justified their colonisation by proposing that they were in fact doing the Irish a favour by bringing Anglo-Saxon "civilisation" to the backward primitives. In fact, one British official used the exact same type of justification to claim that the de-population of Ireland caused by the famine was actually a blessing in disguise as it would allow them to start from scratch and actually make something of Ireland.


He had approached the whole question of British involvement in Ireland with the not unreasonable attitude of why are the British in Ireland against the clear wishes of the vast majority of the Irish people, as many non-Irish people do.
There is a bigger picture, however.
One must also ask why Britain maintains little outposts of it's Empire throughout the world against the wishes of the majority.
That is to say - why does Britain still hold Gibraltar against the wishes of the Spanish people? Why does she still hold the Falklands against the wishes of the Argentinian people? And why does she hold North-East Ulster against the wishes of the Irish people? There is a pattern of planting a small number of colonists (who naturally develop a siege mentality and look to Britain to support them) who become fanatically loyal to Britain and then cling to it on behalf of Britain against the wishes of the majority.

This divide and conquer strategy of using the minority against the majority has been used by Britian throughout the world, and no few conflicts today have their origin in this process.

[Grayflier]

No, I wouldn't agree with that he was ignorant or naive. The idea that British involvement in Ireland was to forestall invasion from Britain's western flank may have been valid up to the 19th century, but it is not valid now. I believe that Britain still maintains a strategic interest in Ireland because of Ireland's geographic proximity to Britain; all countries necessarily have a strategic interest in the countries which border or surround them. But current British involvement in Ireland I suggest would have as much to do with seeing themselves as being undefeated by Irish nationalism and republicanism, which they hate, as for any other coldly clinical matter of policy. And national policy is driven ultimately by emotional goals: national pride and prestige, the desire to win and the satisfaction of being undefeated, the national sense of victory are all ultimately emotional goals and motives for national policy and action. And the only exception to acting on the basis of emotional goals in national policy to fulfil such emotional objectives as national pride, prestige, etc. is when a nation acts in its own defence to prevent its conquest, enslavement, or physical annihilation; in short, when it fights for its very survival.

[Grayflier]

The British have often justified their colonisation by proposing that they were in fact doing the Irish a favour by bringing Anglo-Saxon "civilisation" to the backward primitives. In fact, one British official used the exact same type of justification to claim that the de-population of Ireland caused by the famine was actually a blessing in disguise as it would allow them to start from scratch and actually make something of Ireland.

Yes, well this was the standard saw of imperial Britain: civilising the damned savages. And Malthusian principles were often used to 'prove' the famine was ultimately 'a good thing'.


There is a bigger picture, however.
One must also ask why Britain maintains little outposts of it's Empire throughout the world against the wishes of the majority.
That is to say - why does Britain still hold Gibraltar against the wishes of the Spanish people? Why does she still hold the Falklands against the wishes of the Argentinian people? And why does she hold North-East Ulster against the wishes of the Irish people? There is a pattern of planting a small number of colonists (who naturally develop a siege mentality and look to Britain to support them) who become fanatically loyal to Britain and then cling to it on behalf of Britain against the wishes of the majority.


It all comes down to the aforesaid emotional national objectives: national prestige, maintaining colonial possessions in the face of militarily weak opposition, and showing the world that Britain will not be dictated to by the tyranny of the majority. However, Britain will back down when it is confronted with a country that is so overwhelmingly large it cannot hope to win against it, the best and most recent example being Hong Kong.

[JSE]

No, I wouldn't agree with that he was ignorant or naive. The idea that British involvement in Ireland was to forestall invasion from Britain's western flank may have been valid up to the 19th century, but it is not valid now.Now, perhaps, but what about 50, 100, 200 years from now? The basic facts, dictated by geography etc will never change.

I believe that Britain still maintains a strategic interest in Ireland because of Ireland's geographic proximity to Britain; all countries necessarily have a strategic interest in the countries which border or surround them.Quite.
But current British involvement in Ireland I suggest would have as much to do with seeing themselves as being undefeated Irish by nationalism and republicanism, which they hate, as for any other coldly clinical matter of policy.They hate it becaseu it threatens the Union, not for visceral reasons.
And national policy is driven ultimately by emotional goals: national pride and prestige, the desire to win and the satisfaction of being undefeated are all ultimately emotional goals and motives for national policy and action.These are psychological factors which are important considerations for maintaining the status quo and therefore the continuity of the ruling class.

[Grayflier]

Now, perhaps, but what about 50, 100, 200 years from now? The basic facts, dictated by geography etc will never change.

Well, let's say for the foreseeable future. By the time there is any movement afoot for a foreign power to invade and occupy Ireland as a prelude to invading Britain, there will be sufficient disturbances in the international scene to at least indicate if not predict this drastic turn of events. I can't see modern Spain or France doing it now, certainly not Germany, and I don't think Denmark and Norway are about to launch back into their Viking past. Perhaps if Europe is completely Islamised and is bent on a jihad against Ireland and then Britain it could happen.


They hate it becaseu it threatens the Union, not for visceral reasons.

I would only partly agree with this. Britain's and particularly its political-security apparatus' cold hatred for Irish nationalism and republicanism is motivated because said Irish nationalism and republicanism threaten the Union is only part of the story, but I'll grant you it may be the greater part. I'm quite convinced, in fact pretty damned sure, that some of that cold hatred has spilled over into their viscera.


These are psychological factors which are important considerations for maintaining the status quo and therefore the continuity of the ruling class.

Quite.