“This article is important reading for all Members of Congress concerned about the damage Brexit can do to justice and peace on the partitioned island of Ireland ( Six Counties of which are still under England’s control, i.e Northern Ireland).The author explains the background to England’s historic policy of racism and assumed superiority, always treating all of Ireland as a political football in England’s interest.”—Fr. Sean McManus (born and reared in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, beside England’s imposed Border).
Expecting Ireland to be servile is part of a long British tradition
The Brexit crisis is another example of
how the UK so often ignores the consequences of its conduct on its
neighbor
Richard McMahon. Irish Times. Dublin. Thursday, August 2, 2019
(Richard McMahon is a lecturer in history at the University of Limerick
and an expert on the history of violence).
Boris Johnson’s approach to Ireland is part of an ignoble tradition in
British politics. At its heart is the false assumption that superiority
in resources and military prowess equates to a superiority in
intellectual power and moral rectitude. In short, the idea that might is
right and that, ultimately, Paddy should know his place. This assumption
shaped and even, at times, dominated, policy on Ireland for centuries
before independence[i.e. in the 26 Counties of southern Ireland but not in
the Six Counties of Northern Ireland; Ireland was partitioned in 1920 by the
British government].
It runs through 19th-century British depictions of the Irish as incapable
of self-government, unreliable, lazy and inferior. For
Benjamin Disraeli, a British prime minister who shares some personal
characteristics with the current incumbent, the Irish were “wild,
reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious”. Most obviously,
this sense of superiority and a refined “moral” stance was clearly
manifest in government policy during the Great Famine of 1845-49,
which caused the deaths of more than one million people on the island of
Ireland.
This consistently damaging strain of thought continued into the 20th
century, with British military and economic power often used crudely
to address deep-rooted political conflicts in Ireland, which refused,
and continue to refuse, to allow for simple solutions. Ireland, the
thinking went, should be the handmaiden for glorious Britannia – and
this servile position is for Ireland’s own benefit and ultimately serves
Irish interests.
Of course, within this particular strain of British political thought, the
history of violence and tragedy in Ireland is sometimes portrayed as
a product of Irish recalcitrance – a tendency towards disorder and
conflict that fails to recognize the beneficence of British policy on the
island. Britain, it is often suggested, is a guarantor of Irish
stability, addressing and suppressing the inherent conflicts in Irish
society, rather than a highly disruptive force that has often recklessly
pursued its own interests at a serious cost to its nearest neighbor. This
renders the current crisis part of a rather tragic re-emergence of a
longstanding disregard for the consequences of British political action on
the economic and political stability of Ireland. Sadly, this is
because a powerful element within British political life refuses to accept
that the blind pursuit of British interests can have deeply
damaging consequences for those beyond its borders.
As Johnson now plays with dangerous ideas, promising a “golden age” while
already seeking scapegoats for the failure of his vision, the genuine
possibility of real and lasting damage to Ireland is compelling. The
reintroduction of a hard border on the island is now a
possibility. It would become a permanent target for republicans – and
the social and economic damage could also serve as a recruiting sergeant
for the disaffected to join the ranks of those committed to violent
resistance.
More generally, it demonstrates a disregard for the costs inflicted on the
basic standards of living of the inhabitants of both islands. That
this prospect might be part of an elaborate and rather shallow bluff
in the British government’s negotiations with the EU renders the actions
of Johnson and his extremist cabinet all the more troubling. If true,
Johnson appears to be depending upon reasonable people to block
his unreasonable behaviour in the hope of benefiting electorally from
their principled actions and, in the process, is risking stability and
peace on the island of Ireland.
This reckless pursuit of a Trumpian, Britain-above-all policy, could
unleash forces throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland that Johnson may struggle to contain. The
promotion of a deeper and greater sense of Irish history in Britain might
serve to highlight this folly, although standing against Johnson’s
destructive policies will ultimately have to be the work of committed
activists and men and women of principle in the political realm.
Comments are closed.