Why does Britain, in your opinion still maintain a military force in the 6 counties today, in the 21st century when Ireland is not a strategic military outpost for Imperialism, and when the o6c does not have a great deal of valuable natural resources?

My thoughts are that the island remains divided because the old boys club of the Brit establishment and the Loyalist lobby control policy towards the counties. But I would like to hear from other people, as sections of the Left in the past claimed Britain wanted rid of Ireland <_< ....

For the same reason why Britian is still in Gibraltar despite wanting to hand it over to Spain: the local majority still want to be part of the United Kingdom; obviously this majority was artificially created by drawing the boarders in such a specific way, but now that it has been its part of the political reality there. Even if the British government in london wants to dump northern Ireland on the Republic of Ireland (which it probably does given that its costing them a lot more money then they're getting out of it), its not something that they can politically do as long as the Unionists represent a local majority there.


The real question is why Britian still occupies Basra Province.

It has very little to do with that. The 'majority' in Northern Ireland have always been unionist: i.e. the majority of the N Ireland population has traditionally been made up of Protestants, and the vast majority of those Protestants have been anti-republican.

The republican argument was never based on 'democratic', numerical boundaries of majority and minority. The IRA felt that it had a just cause in fighting British imperialism and it often called for a united front (i.e. of Catholic and Protestant republicans) in the fight against British imperialism. In this context of real life anti-imperialist struggle, it was the British ruling class who popularised the idea that the republican cause is illegitimate because they are in the 'minority'.

And although N Ireland has always been a financial burden on Britain, British occupation of N Ireland had never really been about economic gain. The real reason was to uphold the authority of the British state. If British imperialism was defeated right in its back yard, the authority of British imperialism would have been heavily dented.

In the absense of an anti-imperialist movement in Ireland, and with the defeat of anti-imperialist movements throughout much of the world, how are the six counties relevant to the stability of the British ruling class? Are our old theories and formulas concerning imperialism still valid? Maybe the British ruling class today has less and less little incentive in occupying the six counties. This hasn't got much to do with a unionist challenge... it has more to do with the diminishing of the worldwide anti-imperialist movement.

Not to change the complete matter of subject but America also occupies 135 countries, including 11,000 in Great Britain and Italy, 7,000 in Bosnia and 2,105 in Turkey. Not only is that a suprising study but what means could the United States have to deploy in countries such as Greece, Denmark and Togo.


These statistics were from the ultra-conservative book named "Taking American Back" by Joseph Farah, page 95-97, Chapter "What is Defense?".

...right but i was talking about the British govt. motivation not the republican motivation

It's true there is a majority unionist population in the o6c - thanks to some nifty border carving. But since when did the Brit state care about democracy?

The war in Ireland was very costly for Britain, in both economics and lives. It would have been easy for the Brit govt to talk to the Irish free state govt and organise a transfer of power - and Ian Paisley and the likes would be dismissed by the Brit govt as "irrelevant", etc.

The question is why didn't they?

You both have good arguments

why is the US military present in over 20 countries?

The problem is that during the 80's there was a thing called the 'anglo irish agreement' introduced by thatcher that meant that there could only be a united ireland whenever over 50% of the population decided so through the ballot box.
In the protestant community, the general mindset is definitely still pro-UK which is only enforced by the old boys club of the orange order and unionist parties.Theres also the problem of loyalist terror groups. If a united ireland was granted in the present climate, the loyalist backlash would make the last 30 years of conflict seem like a picnic.

It's hard to say. It seems to me that the significant part of the British ruling class would love to be shot of the embarassing, uneconomical loyalist enclave. Perhaps this is the meaning of Sein Feins ascendancy?

I think they'd prefer to exploit a europe-wide working class under the auspices of the EU, and make the six counties the Republics problem. The UKIP\Little Britain wing, for whom the sun never sets, is very much on the defensive...

There are parallels to be drawn with Basque country and Catalonia...

The thirty years of conflict in Ireland resulted from Irish catholics being treated as second class citizens in the north. There is no basis for protestants in a United Ireland to be discriminated against, it simply isn't an issue down south - the orange order is free to march in the free state.

So the UDA et al may carry out a terrorist campaign in a newly united Ireland, but unless protestants started to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion, theres no scope for it lasting long term.

And considering that protestants in the free state have never been discriminated against, wheres the evidence it would happen to those from the north?

One of the things people never mention when they speak of the unionist majority in the occupied six counties, is how this was created. It was't just through redrawing borders on a map. It required pogroms and massive violence. there would be a catholic majority today had there not been so many of them driven out by violence and discrimination. Thousands fled in 1969 alone. The Orange state is the most violent and oppressive in western europe. Why any leftist would justify a one-party sectarian state that even most liberal groups find unacceptable is beyond me.

There are many reasons the UK stays. Keeping wages low, attracting more investment, etc. Democracy is not even on the list, as the unionists opposed the creation of the six county state to begin with. England has never cared one bit about democracy; if you don't believe me look at Iraq now.

Above all, and the only reason that matters is that the UK is today, along with the USA, a fortress of reaction that will support any tinpot dictator or theocracy. Paisley is a bit of both.

Like i said, in the context of the Cold War and anti-imperialist struggles throughout the world, Britain could not afford to let the Six Counties go - not because of economic reasons, but because Britain (as a major imperialist power) could not afford to be weakened so close to home. It would have made British imperialism look ridiculous if it couldn't even maintain its authority in Ireland.

But, as i said, this is all in the context of anti-imperialist struggles and the Cold War. At a time when the anti-imperialist struggle in Ireland has all but evaporated, and when the world dynamics of the Cold War are a thing of the past, what motivation (and there is a motivation) is there for Britain to occupy the Six Counties? We can only answer that question by considering the fundamentally different historical circumstances in which imperialism takes place today.