“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS” (Orwell 2008, 90). George Orwell[1], who was also in service of the Indian Imperial Police from 1922–1927 and then in 1936 worked for the Left Book Club, where his job was to write about unemployment and the worsening economic situation in the north of England, saw it clearly that despite the rising liberal ideas equality is very far from the ethnicities of the British Isles (Blakeley 1993, 233). Therefore, based on this observation, the aim of this essay is to shed some light upon the various aspects that led to both to Irish independence and the Troubles, which drive the politics of today and the relationship between the British and the Irish. Namely, I put emphasis on the discrimination from both sides, the rising national consciousness and the social rift.
First of all, it is very important to define the phrase ‘Celtic fringe’, which refers to the specific “portion of the population of the British Isles which is of Celtic origin or the native land of such people” (Merriam-Webster U.D.). This includes the lands of Cornwall, Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland, Wales, and Brittany. In terms of History, the ‘Celtic fringe’ was a process of language and culture revitalisation, which of course are related to nationalism (Lyons 2003, 410–411).
It was already clear during the 1970s and 1980s that Britain is a multinational state, which also meant that it is divided culturally and with regard to the national identity of its citizens. While England is the dominant region and for the English there is little distinction between being English and British, the Irish of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland consider themselves first and foremost Irish. The Northern Irish case is very special, which is discussed in detail later on this essay. In summary, the Protestants living in Northern Ireland are closer in identity to the British, but the Roman Catholic minority is dominantly Irish. The economic troubles of the 1960s and 70s and the shrinking of the Empire threatened the unity of Britain and saw the rise of Celtic nationalism once again, which dominates the cultural and political life of the Irish in both Irelands today (Heyck 2002, 265).
For example, a contemporary example can be taken from sports. Most sporting bodies are established on an ‘all-Ireland’ basis. Except national football teams, which are separate organisms in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. At the Olympics, a person from Northern Ireland can choose to represent either the Republic of Ireland team (which competes as “Ireland”) or United Kingdom team (which competes as “Great Britain”). In football the same can be observed regarding other Celtic nations, such as Wales or Scotland still plays in under their own nationality and not under the colours of the United Kingdom (Sugden and Sugden 1997, 46).
Second, to say the least, the relationship of Ireland with England and Scotland was complicated. Therefore, to discuss the present situation, it is important to look at the roots of the contemporary problems. Since the very beginning of time there was a British-Irish quarrel. Ireland was united with Great Britain in 1801 (1800 – Act of Union) – forming the United Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain. Then, the Irish actively sought equal representation in the English Parliament and when that failed, they turned to rebellion (Britannica I.D.). Following the unification, however, integration of the Irish failed and during the Great War, the ‘Celtic fringe’ was revitalized (Heyck 2002, 133).
The rift between the people of Ireland and the other Celtic nations and the English originates partly from the field of religion. Opposed to the British, the Irish are Roman Catholic Christians – while, of course, the British are Protestants, namely, mostly Anglicans (the Scottish are Presbyterians). This led to further complications, which later also led to the escalation of the status of Northern Ireland and the radicalized Irish Republican Army (Heyck 2002, 136).
Several historical events contributed to the rivalry, but arguably the most devastating was the Potato Famine (1845–1851) alongside the constant English tyranny that led to many deaths (over 1 mil. during the Potato Famine) and to the emigration of the population to the United States of America. The atrocities that the British made against the Irish and the negligence towards their pleas are not forgotten even today (Irish Famine Curriculum Committee 1998, 1–14). Following the years of the Great Irish Famine, the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of Irish nationalism – mainly from the ranks of the Catholics, as it is already established before (Heyck 2002, 133–136).
The next important step in the chain of events that led to the Irish Revolution was the Home Rule movement (1870–1918). In 1914 Home Rule was accepted by Westminster, which meant that the Irish can rule Ireland. However, this was opposed by the Ulster Volunteers (1913). They were Protestant Irishmen and Scots, who feared that the Home Rule will lead to the absolute power of Catholics in Ireland. Therefore, this group aimed to prevent the passing of the Bill. To counter act the Ulster Volunteers, the Irish Volunteers was formed in 1914, who, of course, wanted to ensure that the Home Rule Bill was passed by Westminster (Heyck 2002, 136).
The Bill was passed, with the “temporary” exclusion of the six Ulster counties (precursors of the Northern Ireland province), which was the achievement of the resistance that the Ulster Volunteers showed. The most crucial part, which set the course of Ireland into the direction of uprising, was that before it could have been implemented, the Home Rule Act had to be suspended for the duration of the Great War. However, the Irish demanded immediate implementation despite the war and the decision of Westminster was taken as a betrayal (Heyck 2002, 136).
Due to the plans of John Redmond (leader of the Home Rule movement) to get involved in the European front, the Irish Volunteers split into two branches, one was the National Volunteers (the Majority – Supporting Irish involvement in the War) and the other was the Irish Volunteers (the Minority – radicalized and opposed involvement in the war). As a counter movement, the Red Hand of Ulster, distinguished themselves from the rest of Ireland in order to show that they are separate and willing to fight for the Empire (Brandon 1992, 402–405).
During the year of 1916, amidst the Great War, the radical Irish, who had enough of tyranny, had risen up. This was the Easter Uprising, which was carried out by the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Republican Brotherhood (which was a socialist militia). The British response, partially because of the war was martial law, executions and imprisonment. However, this turned the country towards welcoming the radical rebels, which eventually led to the Conscription Crisis of 1918. During which the Irish resisted to be taken into the army to fight in the Great War (Heyck 2002, 137–138).
As a result, turning from the peaceful and lawful solution, Sinn Féin, the Radical Irish Party, had won popularity and support after the English retaliation. They won during the General Election of 1918. Following the Great War, they declared the Irish Republic in 1919, with an Independent Parliament and government. The year of 1920 saw the Government of Ireland Act and the declaration of Ireland as an independent republic. Furthermore, this meant inspiration to the people longing for freedom, which resulted in more and more volunteers to Irish Republican Army (IRA). The result was three years of guerrilla war against Britain that lasted from 1919 to 1921 (Heyck 2002, 139–141).
Meanwhile British public opinion was sickened, they had enough. From one war to another they had to march and soldiers did not want to die in Ireland after they survived the Great War. This meant that in July 1921, a truce was established and in December 1921 the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed. The treaty meant a complete independence for Ireland in home affairs, practical independence in foreign policy, but loyalty to the King of Britain. Basically, a dominion status. However, this was different from other dominions; there was no representative in Westminster and the foreign policy of the country was managed somewhat ‘independently’ (Heyck 2002, 141).
However, to much dislike to the radicals and the IRA, this truce also meant the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, which is still part of United Kingdom as of today. This created a rift within the populace and on June 1922 the Irish Civil War broke out, which lasted until May 1923. It was fought between the pro-Treaty-National Army and the anti-Treaty IRA. In addition, the atrocities of the Civil War created more and more a rifts in the Irish society. Also, today Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are the direct continuations of the opposing parties in the Republic and still their programs reflect the original ideas, dividing the nation. Britain, who was interested in peace, supported the pro-Treaty forces – which were successful due to the weapons provided by the British. Finally, the Civil War ended in 1923, de Valera ordered cease-fire and the Irish Free State was once again led by the winners, but this meant that they are part of the Commonwealth (Heyck 2002, 142–145).
The years of 1921–1939 proved to be successful in the case of establishing the Free State, but was also accompanied with great economic and social problems. A nation divided by the treaty and the British succeeded with the Partition of Ireland (North and South). The IRA was treated as a criminal organization and the government had to accept the borders of Northern Ireland (Heyck 2002, 145).
Fianna Fáil won the elections of 1932. Therefore, the 1930s were marked by de Valera’s social policies that aimed to counter the Great Depression. However, there were no funds for any social policy and especially for any welfare benefits. The relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the Empire had worsened, mainly because of the open criticism of the Partition and because de Valera had stopped the turnover of land purchase payments to Britain. He also dropped the oath of allegiance, which was part of the treaty. To say the least Britain was not pleased, but this time restrained from using violence, there was no need for another war, especially a domestic one. As a result of the British appeasement towards the Irish, de Valera saw to the establishment of a new constitution in 1937, which was free from British interference. This meant a gradual separation from the British Empire (Heyck 2002, 146–147). However, British political agenda did not permit true union with Northern Ireland, so this remained a formal point of the new constitution (Heyck 2002, 145–147).
The 1940s, despite World War II marked the road towards greater sovereignty. The Irish demonstrated neutrality during the war. However, clandestine assistance was provided to the Allies, which marked where the Republic was leaning in the scene of world politics. Despite the various assistance, the neutrality was unpopular with not just the British, but with the Americans as well. People in Great Britain viewed the neutrality as a threat to the safety of the islands. However, the neutrality was only formal, because in secret, the Irish supported the Allies by allowing them to use Irish airspace and by reporting Nazi submarine movements. In addition, Irish volunteers fought in the war on the side of the Allies (Heyck 2002, 273).
After the war, the road was clear towards true independence, mainly, because neutrality was not in line with the Commonwealth. De Valera’s Fianna Fáil party lost dominance after the war years (1945–48), mainly due to the lack of progressive programs. The relatively “young” opposition–Clann na Poblachta–proclaimed the Irish Republic. The year 1949 saw the declaration of the Republic of Ireland, which was free from all British rule. (Heyck 2002, 273–275).
Large-scale emigration marked most of the post-war period, particularly during the 1950s and 1980s. However, beginning in 1987 the economy improved, and the 1990s saw the beginning of substantial economic growth. Also, Ireland joined the European Community, which greatly advance their options and boosted the economy (White 2007, 8). Due to this period of rapid economic growth, The Republic of Ireland became known as the Celtic Tiger (Heyck 2002, 316).
In Northern Ireland, during the 1950s and 60s, Catholics in Ulster began to change their opinion towards the Northern Ireland province. The 50s and 60s saw the emancipation of Catholics in the United Kingdom and also there was the rise of ecumenism within the Roman Catholic Church. The citizens of the UK (including that of Northern Ireland) enjoyed the benefits provided by the welfare state and Catholics had the opportunity of attending universities, which they took. The goal for them was shifted from the union with the Republic of Ireland to achieving full rights as Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland (Heyck 2002, 278–279).
This changed atmosphere gave rise to the Northern Ireland civil rights movement. Marching and demonstrations for equality were held, starting from 1967. Similarly to, and pretty much inspired by the American civil rights movement (Heyck 2002, 278).At first, the goal of the marches was not at all union with Ireland. However, Irish radicals’ and the Ulster Protestants’ irrationality and the non-Catholic fear of unification led to harsh reactions from both sides. During the years of 1968–69, Protestant mobs attacked the civil rights marchers. The Police only stood by or some from among their ranks even joined in on the Protestant side (Heyck 2002, 278–280). Arguably, this was one of the ultimate atrocities that stemmed from viewing the Christians as enemies instead of citizens. As a result, the resistance of the IRA grew even fiercer.
For instance, the protestant viewpoint was that the Catholics were traitors. Ian Paisley argued that the Civil Rights Movement was only a plot to reunite Ireland and subjugate the Protestants of Ulster to the Pope (Heyck 2002, 280–282). This once again shows that the whole rivalry has several levels, and the religious differences are very important. During the years of the Troubles, this aspect resurfaced constantly – especially, from radicalised parties.
The other aspect of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland was characterised by the accusation of discrimination against the Irish Nationalists and the Catholic Minority by the Unionist governments. Therefore, the 1960s were also a fight to end discrimination. In the beginning it was non-violent and moderate – in 1967 the movement was launched by the Catholic minority in Ulster, without the IRA (Heyck 2002, 278).
Loyalists and Unionists opposed the campaign and accused the movement of being radical and fighting for a United Ireland. It was especially voiced by the radical protestant organization, the Orangemen, also known as Ultra-Protestants, led by Ian Paisley. The Ulster governments could not negotiate with both sides and ultimately failed to satisfy the Roman Catholics (Heyck 278–280).
By the summer of 1969, people were killed in Belfast during Protestant-Catholic riots. The August Riots in 1969 resulted in the deployment of British troops by Wilson’s Labour government and this marked the beginning of the Troubles (1969–98). At first, the Catholics welcomed the British Army as their saviours against the Protestants and their Police brutality. However, the arrival of the army coincided with the revival of the IRA (Heyck 2002, 279).
The IRA began the shootings and bombings against the British army, the Ulster police and the Protestant paramilitary organizations. As a result of the constant fighting, the Civil Rights movement merged with the IRA’s goals. The struggle escalated quite rapidly: murder, assassinations, bombings, and executions became daily. Many people in the Catholic community turned against the British army, which tried to flash out the IRA among the Catholics and that led to innocent deaths. For instance, in July 1971, two young Catholics were killed in Derry by British troops. Stormont government refused to investigate, as a result, the Catholic representatives withdrew from the Parliament. In addition, in Aug. 1971, the army and the police began the internments of suspected IRA sympathisers. Internment camps were set up and the army also tortured prisoners. British troops fired on protestors, who tried to raise their voices against the internment camps (Heyck 2002, 279–280).
As a result, the Stormont government was dismissed and Westminster established direct rule over Northern Ireland. from London in 1972. The British goals were to re-establish order and to get rid of the Irish problem. This gave rise to the power sharing policy. Finally, in 1974, moderate Protestants and Catholics agreed to work together that resulted in the Sunningdale Agreement. However, as it happened before in many occasions, Protestant fanatics destroyed the hope and tore down the results of the Agreement. In conclusion, the IRA continued the bombings, which did not help either (Heyck 2002, 280–281).
In 1973, Westminster tried to reconcile the opposing parties by holding a Border Poll (referendum). It was held in Northern Ireland, which ironically the Irish nationalists had boycotted. Therefore, the results were an overwhelming majority for remaining in the UK (Heyck 2002, 281). Basically, this was an opportunity to achieve some kind of change or to make the governments to hear the voice of the people, but by refusing to take part in this legal process, they once again wasted their chances.
The IRA complicated matters by miles. In 1979, they carried out the assassination of Airey Neave, the Conservative spokesman on Northern Ireland in the House of Commons parking lot. Earl Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, was also blown up on his own yacht. In 1984, a terrorist IRA bomb destroyed the Grand Hotel in Brighton. This narrowly failed to kill the Prime Minister , Margaret Thatcher. As a result, Thatcher became relentless against the nationalists. Refused to give in to hunger strikes, which resulted in the death of the strikers (Heyck 2002, 280–281).
In addition, both the government of Northern Ireland and the IRA used ruthless propaganda to win the people’s support. The IRA, for example, used the case of Mairead Farrell, who as they told was an innocent university student executed without evidence, to shake up the civilians in order to create an uprising. However, as it was proved later, Farrell had affiliations with the IRA and partook in extreme or radical operations as well. The goal of the IRA was to frame the Ulster Government as ruthless murderers and as the source of terror. In contrast, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, despite the efforts of the government, did the very same against the IRA and further escalated the already dire situation (Lyons 2003, 412–414).
The Irish Republic became more and more hostile against the IRA. The Republic sympathised with the Civil Rights movement, but the IRA went too far, which in fact destroyed opportunities for de-escalation, peace or even partial reunification and overall cast a bad light on the unification project. After the bombings and the violence, carried out by the IRA, spread to the Republic and especially Dublin, the Irish Parliament adopted an anti-terrorist legislation and started imprisoning IRA activists (Heyck 2002, 281–282).
In addition to carter to Westminster and the Protestants of Northern Ireland, in 1972 the Parliament of Ireland removed Article 44 from the constitution to make itself less threatening towards the Ulster Protestants. Previously, this article gave the Roman Catholic Church a special status. This act was intended to show that the Republic of Ireland is in no way aims to view the citizens of Ulster as second class citizens based on their beliefs (Heyck 2002, 282).
Ultimately, all of these events led to the point, where in 1980 the Republic of Ireland officially admitted that Northern Ireland is a province of Britain. As a result of this gesture it was evident that the Republic is increasingly willing to cooperate with the British in putting down the IRA. This cooperation was a good foundation for establishing peace. Both parties were willing to open talks (Heyck 2002, 280–282).
The willingness to cooperate led to creation of the New Ireland Forum in 1983, which was aimed to improve the Anglo-Irish relations (Heyck 2002, 282). Partially it succeeded and resulted in the Hillsborough Agreement two years later in 1985. This agreement concerned the notion of a united Ireland that would only be achieved by peaceful means (Heyck 2002, 282). Such as by the principle of majority of wishes in Northern Ireland (Heyck 2002, 316–317).
Since both the Irish and the British interests lay in peace and stability, in 1993 the Northern Ireland peace process began with the Downing Street Declaration. The IRA in the middle of these events had to recognize that they cannot drive the English out of Northern Ireland, also the British had to realize that they cannot defeat the IRA as well. However, the IRA was still a radical terrorist organisation (and even today it is one), so they refused to lay down arms. The leaders of the IRA feared that the principles laid down in the Downing Street Declaration would lead to Protestant veto over the Catholic minority. However, Adams persuaded the majority of the IRA to accept the ceasefire, and take part in the peace-talks. The Ulster Unionists saw this as a sign of weakness and since they were the majority, they voted to not let Sinn Fein take their seats in the parliament unless the IRA lay down arms. Of course this invoked the fear of surrender, which the IRA wanted to avoid at all cost. As a result, this fear and resentment resulted in the 1996 IRA bombings. This led to violence once again, which left the peace talks in ruins (Heyck 2002, 317–318).
Despite the temporary setback, in 1997 Tony Blair accepted that the reunification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland would be a “natural” solution to the problem. Then in Belfast, he urged all parties to take part in the negotiations, where he also apologised for the Great Famine – which marked a new attitude and a new direction for the British towards the Irish. Eventually, this led to the aim from all parties that Northern Ireland should to be demilitarized. With the establishment of the Council of the Isles another great step was taken in to the direction of peace, and finally, the Irish were considered to be equal, In 1998, after the long years of The Troubles, the Good Friday Agreement had finally been signed. This meant the ceasefire of the IRA and Sinn Fein (Heyck 2002, 316–320).
Furthermore, to understand the whole process and why it is very difficult to reconcile the opposing sides, it is very important to take a look at the viewpoint of the radical party as well. For this, Bernadette Devlin’s interview that she gave to Playboy in 1972 is a very useful source. Especially, because the rhetoric and the references that she used are quite telling regarding the way how radical supporters of the union with the Republic of Ireland frame and think about the events and the opposite side.
As we can read in the introduction of Blakeley the whole situation is either “England’s Irish question, or Ireland’s English question” (1993, 266). This notion sets up the approach of Devlin that is filled with resentment and which aims to frame the rivalry in the same condescending viewpoint that the British had before. It can be argued that this is partly the result of the unfulfilled nationalism and the religious bigotry that characterises both parties.
Devlin as a Roman Catholic advocates for the unification of all Ireland in opposition to the Protestant unionists, who want to remain part of the United Kingdom. She was elected to be a member of the twelve Northern Irish PMs in House of Commons in order to represent the Catholics and fight for their rights. She positions herself as an Irish Nationalist and socialist – advocating for the system to be an independent socialist state, which could solve the problems of the Irish. However, she spent time in prison for inciting to riot in the name of change, instead of realising slow reforms in the legal way. Therefore, she turned to radicalism, which is a very important characteristic that marks the political solution taken by her (Blakeley 1993, 266–267).
In addition, she condemned the British policy towards Ireland, but drawing a more complex picture, mainly due to the fact that she acknowledged that the problems of Ireland were not only incited by the British political and religious oppression. Instead, the interview presented two parallel societies living in Ulster besides one another, a rift within the Irish nation. Also, she draws the line of segregation on the historical fact that there were Scottish Presbyterian settlers imported by Cromwell, during his conquest of Ireland. Describing the complex history of Ireland as “800 years of invasion, oppression, exploitation and genocide” (Blakeley 1993, 267). She also makes a reference to the Battle of Boyne that was part of the Glorious Revolution: “In Northern Ireland, the Battle of Boyne is still being fought…” (Blakeley 1993, 268). This quote explains the attitude of the radicals, which is evident, that they are fighting a revolutionary war constantly against the British.
This war like attitude also explains the viewpoint, which was debated that if the Irish negotiating team had held out, the British Parliament under Lloyd George would have caved in. The argument stems from the fact that after The Great War, the survival for the British depended on the quick withdrawal from Ireland by the British forces in order to save manpower and other resources (Blakeley 1993, 269).
Finally, Devlin argues that the North was exploited, and non-protestants are oppressed. Therefore, the long term solution would only be a United Ireland with the idea of independent socialism, otherwise problems will resurface time and time again despite the reconciliation efforts. But eventually she too realises that only a peaceful reunification is acceptable (Blakeley 1993, 270). As a result, in my interpretation, it is clear that both the British and the Irish are fighting a war that neither side can win at the moment, but which could be partially solved if both sides would let their hatred go.
In conclusion, the events of the early 20th century set the course for the Irish nation, and even today dominates their political affiliations and sometimes their everyday lives as well. In summary, the resentment of the people towards the British and the conflict and tension that exists even today stems from the scars between the various ethnicities that live in the British Isles. For example, radical IRA terrorists are still active today in Northern Ireland, fighting an improbable war to liberate Ulster and create a united and independent Ireland. However, they disregard facts that the region is now of Protestant majority and they more or less democratically voted to stay in the UK. The other side of the coin is that the British are in the same boots and they are interested in keeping Northern Ireland. Today Brexit complicates matters further, so this question is far from being answered. Therefore, the own biases of both Ireland(s) and the UK and their agenda keep them from recognising the failures of their current political patchwork that is meant as a solution for the long run. Feelings and radical points of views that are embedded in the events of the past still dominate the political and social lives of the two Irelands.
Reference List:
Bardon, Jonathan. 1992. A History of Ulster. Newtownards: Blackstaff Press.
Blakeley, Brian and Collins, Jacquelin. 1993. Documents in British History. Vol. II: 1688 to Present. London: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. Invalid Date. “Act of Union.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Act-of-Union-United-Kingdom-1801. Accessed: 3 November 2022.
Heyck, T. W. 2002. A history of the British Isles from 1688 to 1914. Vol. II. (From 1870). London: Lyceum Books.
Irish Famine Curriculum Committee. 1998. “The Great Irish Famine.” New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education. Online archived PDF. Accessed: 3 November 2022.
Lyons, Laura. 2003. “Hand-to-hand history: Ephemera and Irish Republicanism.” Interventions, 5(3), 407–425. DOI:10.1080/1369801032000135648
Merriam-Webster. Unknown Date. “Celtic fringe.” Dictionary. Online dictionary. Last accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Celtic%20fringe
Orwell, George. 2008. Animal Farm. London: Penguin Books.
Sugden, J., & Sugden, J. 1997. “Sport and community relations in Northern Ireland.” Managing Leisure, 2(1), 39–54. DOI:10.1080/136067197376275
White, Timothy J. 2007. “Modeling the Origins and Evolution of Postcolonial Politics: The Case of Ireland.” Postcolonial Text, Vol 3: 3.
[1] Orwell (1903–1950), also known as Eric Arthur Blair.
Written at the University of Szeged, during the Fall of 2022, for the Seminar titled Politics and Society in Interwar Britain.