A United Ireland Must Not Replace British Imperialism With Irish Imperialism

Nation-state: A country which consists of one people/ethnic group

Empire: A country where one ethnic group dominates others

Multinational state: A country which consists of several ethnicities without any one dominating

In most discussions about a United Ireland, the focus is on Northern Ireland and how it would change society there. Southerners generally view the issue as something for Northerners to decide as it will primarily affect them. However, little thought is given to how a United Ireland would fundamentally change the Republic of Ireland and how we view ourselves as Irish people. We must consider this issue very carefully because if we make the wrong choice we could end up repeating the mistakes of the past, but this time with the roles reversed.

A United Ireland would mean that the Republic would no longer be a nation-state. I have given a simple definition of the three forms of political institutions available that we will have to choose from (obviously the precise definition varies but the principle is well known in political theory). At the moment, Ireland is a nation-state, the state exists to represent, protect and benefit Irish people. It is a state for Irish people and no one else. Immigration has caused a rethinking of what it means to be Irish, but it has not undermined this fundamental point.

However, a united Ireland would. You see, in a 32 county Republic, there would no longer be just one nation, but two. The addition of Protestants/Unionists/Ulster-Scots (however you wish to call them) would mean the state could no longer act solely in the interest of Irish people. Ireland would have to choose between being an Empire or a Multinational state.

Some people would find the idea of Ireland being an empire completely ridiculous, but I am not using the word to mean ‘powerful country’ as it often colloquially is, but rather in the political theory sense of ‘one nation that rules others’. I’m sure many will still resist the term, after all, throughout our history, haven’t we always been opposed to empires? We have been the oppressed, not the oppressor. While it is true that in the past the Irish were excluded from power and could never oppress another people, this won’t be the case in a united Ireland. Believing us Irish could never oppress anyone else is as naïve as thinking someone who was bullied could never bully someone else (when this is actually very common) or that because we have suffered in the past, we could never inflict suffering on others (the IRA disproved this point). It is naïve to believe that your side in a war would never commit atrocities, but in reality, everyone is capable of abusing their power.


Some might feel that there is no major difference between Unionists and Nationalists, that deep down we are all Irish. While this might be well-intentioned, denying their identity is a recipe for trouble. Presuming Unionists will naturally assimilate or pushing them to do so, is no better than the attempts by the English to force Irish people to assimilate into a British identity. This was resisted where possible and resented when successful (such as with the decline of the Irish language). Protestants will want to maintain their separate identity and cannot be wished away (or told to leave for England). British rulers of Ireland believed that improving the economic status of the Irish (such as through land reform) would undermine Irish nationalism and make the population loyal to London, but as we all know, that wasn’t the case. Why should we then presume that economic reasons would be enough to undermine Unionism and make them loyal to Dublin?

A clear example of this is with the Irish language. At the moment, it is the first official language of Ireland and strongly promoted by the state. But Ulster-Scots do not see it as their language and are resistant to efforts to promote it. How would a united Ireland treat mandatory teaching of Irish in schools? We could go down the Empire route of insisting that all students, regardless of ethnicity, must learn Irish, but this would provoke major resistance from Unionists. Many students would flat out refuse and what would we do with them? Fail them? Expel them? Alternatively, we could go down the multinational route and make Irish optional. But optional for everyone or just Unionists? How could someone prove their membership of the Unionist community, by religion? By heritage? By school? Would we not end up in a situation where there were two types of citizens? The Irish and the Ulster-Scots? We don’t like the idea of forcing our culture and language on other people, but I don’t think we are willing to give up on the language either.

Our view of history and ourselves would have to change as well. The state currently draws its origin from the Easter Rising and War of Independence and considers the rebels as heroes who fought for Irish freedom. But Protestants will never celebrate the IRA (even the 1921 version) because their ancestors fought on the other side. Their history doesn’t celebrate the rebels like ours does, so whose would have to change? If we were an Empire we would force our heroes onto them, but if we were a multinational state we would celebrate their heroes too. But what Irish person could celebrate Cromwell and the Black and Tans? It’s impossible to imagine statues to British soldiers being erected in Dublin, but how can we claim to value Ulster-Scots equally, if we don’t value their history?

What Unionist would sing the national anthem? They don’t speak the language and even if they did, a song about the Gaels fighting the Saxon foe is not something that would represent them. Do we give up the anthem or impose it on them? Either option would lead to serious resistance and years of controversy. What about the flag, I personally think it well represents the two communities, but they might view it with political connotations. After all, the British Union Jack was intended to represent all the people of the British Isles, but it came to be viewed as the flag of imperialism. If you want to know how Unionists view the Tricolour, ask yourself how the Irish feel about the Union Jack.

Whenever we speak of ethnic minorities, we must always remember the risk of backlash. At numerous points in American history (and other countries too), the perception that minorities were being favoured and prioritised lead to a backlash from the white majority. For every Martin Luther King promoting respect, there is a George Wallace condemning special treatment. Donald Trump draws a significant section of his support from people who believe he is standing up to political correctness and the first black president cared about other people and not them.

So, if Ireland became a multinational state and made significant concessions to the Unionist minority, there would be many people who would resist this. If Irish was no longer a mandatory school subject, there would be many protestors and claims the language was being abandoned and left to die. People would claim abandoning the flag is treason. It is likely that we would have similar debates to those currently raging in America over statues and flags. Politicians would be caught between two sides pulling against each other, between Empire and Multinationalism, and would struggle to please everyone. There would be resentment among Irish people who feel they are losing control of “their” country and can’t be fully Irish in Ireland. Ulster-Scots would also be resentful and feel unwelcomed in a United Ireland, that it is a “cold house”. There would always be the temptation for politicians to gain support by whipping up this resentment.

Ireland can be united or it can be Gaelic, but it can’t be both. We can have a 26-county state that promotes the Irish language, our traditions and history or we can have a 32-county state that uses English and honours both sides of the War of Independence. Before we consider a border poll, we must weigh the cost of unification and ask ourselves if it is worth it. In order to unite the island, we would have to give as well as take.

Some might think this is a lot of worry over nothing and that Unionism will fade away in a united Ireland. Protestants have been duped by their politicians, but will be won over by the progress and prosperity of Ireland. But put yourself in their shoes and compare the experience with British rule. If British rule was restored over Ireland, what would it take to make you consider yourself British? Most Irish people would say nothing. Even if it made them richer, we would not be comfortable in Britain. Even if taxes were lower and public services were better, few would willingly consider themselves British. Even if the British government guaranteed our rights and promised complete equality, the hand of history would still hold us back. Too much has happened in the past for us to give up our identity. If we would be so reluctant to drop our identity, why would we think that Ulster-Scots are any different? The promises of a united Ireland of equals will not be written on a blank slate, history hangs over us all.

We cannot discuss a United Ireland without discussing what it means to be Irish. How much give and take will there be? Will it all be one-sided, will only Unionists have to change, or will we too have to change? Can Unionists become Irish without giving up their culture, identity and history? Would they be equal citizens, not just legally but socially? Would we be one, united nation or will the divides between the communities persist or even further deepen? Will we respect and accommodate Unionists, or will we try to dominate them? What if a United Ireland is not worth the cost of losing an Irish nation-state?


4 thoughts on “A United Ireland Must Not Replace British Imperialism With Irish Imperialism”

  1. This article raises some interesting points, and indicates some of the many challenges in a major political change, such as uniting or dividing a country. However, I disagree with one of the article’s foundational premises and with an expressed global viewpoint. The author says, “Some people would find the idea of Ireland being an empire completely ridiculous, but I am not using the word to mean ‘powerful country’ as it often colloquially is, but rather in the political theory sense of ‘one nation that rules others’.” I can’t speak to the terminology used by the body of political theorists, but the presented definitions of nation-state, empire, and of multinational state are absurd. By these definitions, the number of nation-states in the world is probably less than ten. The number of multinational states is zero, and the number of empires is over 180. Calling almost every country in the world an empire is not useful, and not connected to the standard definition of the term.

    If the author asserts that nation-states exist as a meaningful category, then he is arguing that the diversity present in virtually every country on earth can be ignored, and that we can claim that many countries “consist of one people/ethnic group”. This hasn’t been true since the beginning of the colonial era, and few countries met the criterion, even then. Yet he will not gloss over the differences between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, even though those differences are less dramatic than in many other countries. The author also is ready to accept the fantasy of a country in which several ethnicities have equal status and rights. I can’t name a single one. The only remaining category is empire. By these definitions, Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, China, Japan, Thailand, Lebanon, France, South Africa, Fiji, Afghanistan, Trinidad and Tobago, The Netherlands, Kenya, New Zealand, Guatemala, Italy, Switzerland, and virtually every other country in the world are empires, because they contain multiple ethnic groups, with one that is dominant, while the others are in an inferior position, if not outright suppressed or oppressed. These definitions are not accurate or meaningful in today’s world.

    The author’s main premise is that because the people who would make up a United Ireland have identifiable differences, they can not possibly get along or cooperate in government. This thesis has been a popular political argument during the last sixty years, and a very damaging one in many cases. The intentional destruction of the democracy and rule of law in the United States has been based on this argument. But it is not an inevitability, it is simply a risk that can be managed for positive results, or exploited to consolidate power for a few.

    It is indeed very hard for diverse groups to create and maintain a healthy political climate. But the viewpoint that it is impossible ignores two key facts: 1) That it is also difficult for homogenous groups to create and maintain a healthy political climate; and 2) All of the countries in the world that are doing OK, by whatever criteria that you wish to rate them, are in fact dealing with the challenges in a workable manner. The pessimist might say that there are no countries in the world that are acceptable, and that is a supportable argument. But not a helpful one. I hope that Ireland can create a positive and flourishing structure of governance, which benefits all of its people, whether in separate or united governments.

    I think that it would be far more useful for people to dedicate more effort to discovering and developing approaches that work for enhancing life for people in every country, and less to insisting that cooperation and collaboration is impossible.

    1. “the presented definitions of nation-state, empire, and of multinational state are absurd. By these definitions, the number of nation-states in the world is probably less than ten. The number of multinational states is zero, and the number of empires is over 180.”

      You have failed to understand the definitions and I’m not sure why you think there are no nation-states left in the world. Most European countries are nation-states as they are based around one nationality, for example Germany, Sweden, Italy, Poland, Hungary etc. These are all countries with one major ethnic group (immigration has not lead to permanently separate recognised ethnic groups to challenge this). I don’t know why you don’t think multinational countries exist, have you never heard of Belgium or Switzerland? In fact most of your examples of Empires are actually multinational countries and a few are even nation-states.

      “The author’s main premise is that because the people who would make up a United Ireland have identifiable differences, they can not possibly get along or cooperate in government.”

      Are you not familiar with the history of Northern Ireland? If you were, you would know that co-operation is a major difficulty. In fact the local parliament has been unable to meet for over a year due to the divide between communities.

      “I think that it would be far more useful for people to dedicate more effort to discovering and developing approaches that work for enhancing life for people in every country, and less to insisting that cooperation and collaboration is impossible.”

      To try and blame me for standing in the way of co-operation is daft and dumb. United Ireland is not the only path to co-operation, there are already major efforts in that regard happening currently under British rule. Why do you need a united Ireland to develop approaches for enhancing people’s lives? In fact, a united Ireland would likely increase the division and divide in Northern Ireland and make co-operation more difficult.

  2. Northern Ireland will only ever unite with the republic by a referendum, per the Good Friday agreement. No such vote will ever be succesful unless the majority of northerners are in fact nationalists. Unionists will be free to maintain loyalty to Britain, and a responsible Ireland would allow them to honor British heroes during the war for independence. But that does not mean the Irish government has a responsibility to honor the U.K., only that people who wish to do so are free to do so.

    The Good Friday referendum would be a litmus test for northern political opinion; success would mean unionists are in the minority, and do not need special preference any more than Roma would. Failure would mean unionists are still the north’s majority, and so they would remain in the union.

    Basically, what I’m saying is that a United Ireland will only ever exist when unionist opinion is not significant. Which means we wouldn’t need to appease their opinions amy more than we would appease communist or anarchist opinion; their beliefs would simply not have enough widespread support to warrant it.

    1. Your reasoning doesn’t make sense. A border poll could lead to a united Ireland if only 49% of voters are unionists. However, I wouldn’t call 49% an insignificant number that can be easily ignored.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s