Britain has no "selfish, strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,090
These were the words spoken by Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Peter Brooke on the 9 November 1990.

They were further enshrined in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and were instrumental in convincing the Republic in dropping articles 2&3. It was seen as a mutual concession that both the UK and Ireland would withdraw territorial claims over the North in exchange for the Northern Irish people choosing which State to belong to.


The language coming from the Tory party and right wing press in the UK over the last few days has now clearly shown that Britian does have a selfish, strategic and economic interest in Northern Ireland. The jingoistic language coming from
publications such as the Telegraph "EU tries to ANNEX Northern Ireland", to idiots like Jacob Rees Mogg threatening Ireland because we have made preparations to protect the State from the fall out of Brexit, goes to show that the UK is no longer an innocent party to the Northern Ireland issue. The fact that the Tory Party are being propped up by the DUP highlights further the illusion that Britian has no strategic interest over the North.

What the answer is, I do not know. But to accept that the equation has changed is important in the search for answers.
 


D

Deleted member 48908

Britain's may not, but May does. Several of Northern Ireland's MPs are propping up her government. The conversation might be different if she and her government weren't so beholden to the DUP.
 

paddycomeback

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
1,908
We need the Luftwaffe, French Foreign Legion, Armada Española to protect us from attack by Johnson and Rees-Mogg.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,914
Britain's may not, but May does. Several of Northern Ireland's MPs are propping up her government. The conversation might be different if she and her government weren't so beholden to the DUP.
Yup. A nation’s strategic interests shouldn’t vary from election to election.

GB would clearly love to be shot of NI. GB recognises the historic obligation they owe the majority of those in NI who want to remain in the UK. There isn’t a quick solution. GB can’t force them out, they just have to wait for demographics to be free of them.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
Britain's may not, but May does. Several of Northern Ireland's MPs are propping up her government. The conversation might be different if she and her government weren't so beholden to the DUP.
This. +1000
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,711
But to accept that the equation has changed is important in the search for answers.

A large majority of the mainland British (both citizens and politicians) don't want NI.
At present they are only using it as a bargaining chip.
But that's different to actually wanting it.


NI is a fiscal black hole.
It provides absolutely no advantages to the rest of the UK.
In fact, it is only disadvantageous to them, sucking time, resources and monumental opportunity cost (i.e. the Brits would prefer to spend the annual NI subsidy on their own health service etc.).
It's an all-round headache with no payback.

Didn't Tom King, when he was secretary of state for NI, say something along the lines of 'We are there out of Duty (to the Unionists), not Territory' ?
Brooke was only re-affirming this stance.
Nothing has changed.
 

theObserver@hotmail.com

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
2,395
The entire sentiment behind the Tories is a vague fantasy of returning britain to their 20th century position of an sea based empire on the fridges of Europe free to plunder whoever their choose. Unfortunately for us Ireland features in that fantasy because they still consider us 'their people' and Brexit awoke passions people believed were once behind us.

It should be obvious that this issue cannot be settled until britians final overseas colony, the north eastern province of Ireland, is surrendered.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,090
Britain's may not, but May does. Several of Northern Ireland's MPs are propping up her government. The conversation might be different if she and her government weren't so beholden to the DUP.
And the key decisions to be made by May on Northern Ireland in the coming weeks and months will long outlive her premiership. It will be a path that Britain follows, ergo becoming part of Britain's strategic interest in NI.
 

Sheeple_Waker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
388
Yup. A nation’s strategic interests shouldn’t vary from election to election.

GB would clearly love to be shot of NI. GB recognises the historic obligation they owe the majority of those in NI who want to remain in the UK. There isn’t a quick solution. GB can’t force them out, they just have to wait for demographics to be free of them.
They have no obligations to the unionists, twice in 100 years their refusal to both accept democracy and democratic rights within the framework of the UK are directly responsible for upwards of 7000 political deaths on this island since 1916.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

And the key decisions to be made by May on Northern Ireland in the coming weeks and months will long outlive her premiership. It will be a path that Britain follows, ergo becoming part of Britain's strategic interest in NI.
I'm not sure that May is capable of decision making.

Neither am I sure that her premiership will last months or weeks even. The Ides of March are nearly upon us.
 

Prof Honeydew

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
5,180
The entire sentiment behind the Tories is a vague fantasy of returning britain to their 20th century position of an sea based empire on the fridges of Europe free to plunder whoever their choose. Unfortunately for us Ireland features in that fantasy because they still consider us 'their people' and Brexit awoke passions people believed were once behind us.

It should be obvious that this issue cannot be settled until britians final overseas colony, the north eastern province of Ireland, is surrendered.
After years of futile research wasted on trying to reconcile the contradictions contained therein, you have finally explained how Iceland transformed itself from a Nordic island republic in the North Atlantic into the retailer of choice for your average Brexit voter.
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,811
The statement always seemed bizarre any way. Britain has no strategic interest in Ireland. So it wouldn't matter to them if a communist regime came to power in Dublin then?

They spent 30 years fighting a war because they really want to leave?

Just ask yourself does Ireland have any strategic interest in Britain. The answer is yes. We export a lot of goods to the place and we wish for that to continue. Remember, our own government even campaigned in Britain against Brexit. We have interests and they have interests.

Now with Brexit things change again. Britain is outside and will now be surrounded by the EU. Britain was on the winning side in two world wars because the Germans couldn't starve them out. The Atlantic remained under their control.

It is assumed that in future should the North vote to end partition that Britain will accept this. But we've already had politicians in the Republic saying 50% + 1 is not enough. The British could do the same.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
We need the Luftwaffe, French Foreign Legion, Armada Española to protect us from attack by Johnson and Rees-Mogg.
Some people are baying for an opportunity to be on the wrong side.

Actually, we just need politicians with backbone to represent our interests.

Instead they are donning superficial green jerseys, selling us out and yelping like idiots at the thoughts of deliberately antagonizing Nothern Unionists, so as to make sure that they will look down on us - depite the clowns they elect themselves.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
45,623
The statement always seemed bizarre any way. Britain has no strategic interest in Ireland. So it wouldn't matter to them if a communist regime came to power in Dublin then?
To be very honest, DCC is run by a motley of crack pots - including some rather clueless trots, former stalinists, and terrorist apologists.
 

DJP

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
12,723
Website
darrenjprior.blogspot.com
Twitter
https://twitter.com/DarrenJPrior
These were the words spoken by Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Peter Brooke on the 9 November 1990.

They were further enshrined in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and were instrumental in convincing the Republic in dropping articles 2&3. It was seen as a mutual concession that both the UK and Ireland would withdraw territorial claims over the North in exchange for the Northern Irish people choosing which State to belong to.


The language coming from the Tory party and right wing press in the UK over the last few days has now clearly shown that Britian does have a selfish, strategic and economic interest in Northern Ireland. The jingoistic language coming from
publications such as the Telegraph "EU tries to ANNEX Northern Ireland", to idiots like Jacob Rees Mogg threatening Ireland because we have made preparations to protect the State from the fall out of Brexit, goes to show that the UK is no longer an innocent party to the Northern Ireland issue. The fact that the Tory Party are being propped up by the DUP highlights further the illusion that Britian has no strategic interest over the North.

What the answer is, I do not know. But to accept that the equation has changed is important in the search for answers.
Actually Peter Brooke said that Britain has no "no selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland. To this day seemingly some Nationalist's don't understand what difference a comma can make.
 

fifilawe

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
1,485
You can take Jacob Rees-Mogg,Bozo Johnson ,Michael Gove, John Redwood etc out of the class , but you cannot take the Class out of them. A load of Dinosaurs who lead the gullible by the nose into the mire, slurry pit the UK is in or about to be in.'The whole world is Britain's oyster outside the EU' was the motto , well it is if you exclude the BRICs, US, China, Japan and the Rich Emirates + Saudi .Leaving the Eu sends 'conflicting signals' to future trading partnerships well good luck to the Toffs squaring that circle!
 

PeacefulViking

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
2,469
Yup. A nation’s strategic interests shouldn’t vary from election to election.
There is no neutral definition of what a nation's strategic interests are. Like any other policy area elections have consequences.
 

Malcolm Redfellow

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
4,104
Website
redfellow.blogspot.com
Twitter
mredfellow
I became intrigued by (what I assume to be) the thrust of this topic when I detected a peculiar language difference.

On one side (the one nearer my point of view) the term was "Good Friday Agreement". However, those who were critical (the Rees-Mogg and Catharine Letitia Hoey types) were preferring "Belfast Agreement". Quite why this divergence has become so obvious is beyond me.

Then, yesterday in #PMQs, Prime Minister May went categorical:
the draft legal text that the Commission has published would, if implemented, undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish sea, and no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it. [my emphases]
Forgive me: that surely is a gross over-statement.

As early as 19 May 1916 (i.e. in the aftermath of the Easter Rising), Lloyd George was negotiating behind the scenes to do precisely what Mrs May says is impossible. On that date he wrote to T.P.O’Connor:
… if I am allowed to make some arrangement about Ulster I can promise to get you Home Rule for all the rest of Ireland.

[Source: Alan O’Day: Irish Home Rule, 1867-1921, page 270].
George wasn't PM at that moment: quite correct. But he would seem to have the consensus of the Cabinet to make that proposal.

Sure enough, when Lloyd George, by now Prime Minister in the post-Coupon Election ‘Coalition’, defined what his idea of ‘Home Rule’ amounted to:
… we propose that self-government should be conferred upon the whole of Ireland, and our plan is based on the recognition of those three fundamental facts: First, the impossibility of severing Ireland from the United Kingdom; second, the opposition of Nationalist Ireland to British rule in Ireland; and third, the opposition of the population of North-East Ulster to Irish rule. The first involves the recognition that Ireland must remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. The second involves the conferring of self-government upon Ireland in all its domestic concerns. The third involves the setting up of two Parliaments, and not one, in Ireland. That is the first proposal which we mean to recommend to Parliament—that there should be two Legislatures set up in Ireland.
If that doesn't amount to changing the constitutional integrity of the UK, what does it imply?

When it came to establishing parameters for the 1921 Treaty, we have Lloyd George and de Valera head-to-head in four meetings between 14 and 24 July 1921:
Lloyd George swiftly spelt out the British position — continued loyalty to the crown, prohibition of an Irish navy and air force, complete freedom of trade between Ireland and the United Kingdom and no coercion of Northern Ireland. Two issues separating Britain and de Valera were pinpointed — the formal unity of Ireland and the country’s future relationship to Great Britain. The Prime Minister was flexible on both and de Valera, too, adopted a moderate attitude.

[Source: Alan O’Day: Irish Home Rule, 1867-1921, page 301].
And that — largely — is what went into the Treaty. But notice the 'Free Trade area' (which has a significance at the present moment), and — watch this space — 'no coercion'.

Time and tides moved on. Until we arrive at June 1940:
‘I suggest we test this,’ [Lord President of the Council] Chamberlain said when the British Cabinet considered the latest report on 25 June. He advocated making a formal offer to end partition in return for Irish cooperation. The Cabinet agreed, but Churchill stitched into the record the suggestion that this would ultimately be conditional on Northern Ireland’s acceptance. After a short discussion the Cabinet ‘agreed that, while the proposed communication did not go beyond asking Mr. de Valera what his attitude would be to the plan suggested, it was liable to be represented as an offer.’ […]

The British offer was incorporated in a six-point memorandum that [Malcolm] MacDonald handed to de Valera the next day, 26 June 1940. The Taoiseach was having great difficulty reading it because his eyesight was failing, so MacDonald read it to him:
(i) A declaration to be issued by the United Kingdom Government forthwith accepting the principle of a United Ireland.
(ii) A joint body including representatives of the Government of Éire and the Government of Northern Ireland to be set up at once to work out the constitutional and other practical details of the Union of Ireland. The United Kingdom Government to give such assistance towards the work of this body as might be necessary.
(iii) A joint Defence Council representative of Éire and Northern Ireland to be set up immediately.
(iv) Éire to enter the war on the side of the United Kingdom and her allies forthwith, and for the purposes of the Defence of Éire to invite British vessels to have the use of the ports in Éire and British troops and aeroplanes to cooperate with the Éire forces and to be stationed in such positions in Éire as may be agreed between the two Governments.
(v) The Government of Éire to intern all German and Italian aliens in the country and to take any further steps necessary to suppress Fifth Column activities.
(vi) The United Kingdom Government to provide military equipment at once to the Government of Éire.

[Source: T. Ryle Dwyer: Behind the Green Curtain, Ireland’s Phoney Neutrality During World War II, pages 81-2]
The 'coercion' in all that is blindingly obvious:
  • Craig, PM of NI, and his about-to-be successor, Andrews, were each convinced matters were happening 'behind his back', and they were fully justified;
  • Westminster was severely disgruntled about the lack of defence provisions and civilian protection being undertaken by the Stormont régime (indeed, wholly disenchanted with the Unionist governance of the Six Counties);
  • we know from Mackenzie King's Diaries he had conversations with Malcolm MacDonald (now Governor-General of Canada) which made explicit that MacDonald had plenipotentiary powers to offer de Valera much more, with solid promises of reunification.
Which adds a further dimension to 8 December 1941. Immediately on the news of Pearl Harbor, Churchill telegrammed de Valera:
Now is your chance. Now or never. ‘A Nation Once Again’. Am ready to meet you at any time.
[British representative in Dublin] Maffey was told to deliver that message immediately. At 2 am he went to de Valera’s private residence. The precise intent of Churchill’s message is one for the dialectitians. Still, it clearly invites comparison with the June 1940 approach. I read it as a clear suggestion that Churchill (Churchill of all people!) was prepared to sell out the Six Counties.

So much for the notion: no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top