Poppies, republicanism and Republicanism
It’s hardly surprising that a Republican like Chris Donnelly has problems with poppy-wearing. But is it really the reinforcement of British militarism that it has – admittedly – been allowed to become?
Aside from their fundraising role, poppies are part of a national contemplation of the sacrifice of service people. It’s not a universal activity by any means though.
Isolationists, people with a pragmatic objection to particular conflicts, or people – like Chris – who challenge the legitimacy of the British state in the first place sometimes either refuse to participate or do so grudgingly. I would argue that – in doing so – they are misunderstanding the potential that national remembrance can have in the context of the social contract.
In a representative democracy, we vote for people who then enact the general will. And the general will currently is that British troops are fighting in Afghanistan (whatever opinion polls at any given point say) paid for by British taxpayers (including Chris). Even if I were to have opposed that war, a wholehearted democrat should, I believe, conclude that the limits to legitimate opposition to it are boundaried by my right to protest legally and my power to vote for it’s opponents next time.
For this reason, the slogan ‘Not In My Name!’ is a heedless – even dangerous – one. When a country goes to war, it is always in all of our names – no matter what our personal views are. You can’t pay for something one minute and deny responsibility for it the next. If you wanted the criticise this position, probably the best charge would be that it is ‘too republican’ in the classical sense of the word.
When a democracy sends people to fight and die on it’s behalf, it’s citizens acquire a debt to those people, whatever our personal views on the conflicts concerned. It’s not just a financial debt either, but one where they are thanked for doing our bidding and where the casualties and their families know that the public are contemplating the sacrifice that they made.
When people go to fight on our collective instructions, they need to know that we have considered and weighed the sacrifice that they are making. That they aren’t just chaff or cannon-fodder sent off on a whim. This is why the trend towards the poppy becoming an unthinking act of public cant is so damaging. What Brian Walker here has called ‘poppy fascism’. As long as poppy-wearing is an act of conformity rather than reflection, it betrays the most valuable aspect of remembrance.
When we buy a poppy, we provide a few coins, but more importantly, I would hope that we pledge to take part in a national programme of contemplation.
Good democracies need to do this because, put crudely, our electoral decisions effectively name the price that we put on the lives of service people. I may have supported this war but not that one, but that should be immaterial. No-one is obliged to express personal support for any national venture, but when we hold our pre-election debates, we frame the nation’s attitude to war – and this has a bearing upon future casualties (among other things).
The quality of pre-election public debate is crucial though. To illustrate this, compare two issues (*picking the first one out of the air*): The NHS and ….. er… GM Crops.
Elections put a price on the value we place on the health service. They do this because politicians know that there will always be a lively debate on this subject because their constituents are either regular users of the health service, or are friends-and-relations with people who are. Most of us have the opportunity to pick up enough experience to be informed spectators on the pre-election NHS debate. For this reason, it’s a sign of a healthy democracy that the NHS is an important battleground.
GM Crops, on the other hand, are a much more complex issue – one that most of us don’t know enough about to pronounce upon – and one where self-interested pressure groups have the capacity to promote policies that may not serve the widest public interest. It’s a question for the distributed moral wisdom of Parliament rather than a necessarily simplified public debate.
Putting service people in harm’s way should be an NHS-ish issue rather than a GM Crops-ish one. It’s one that we should all have contemplated, and the annual remembrance season is a good opportunity for this conversation to take place.
Governments will, surely, make better decisions if this is the case? A desire for better policymaking is something that should unite us all – regardless of our attitudes to particular conflicts. It follows that an improvement in the quality of policy debate will result in fewer deployments of British troops to further less defensible war-aims.
For this reason, surely Irish nationalists and republicans living in the UK should join the collective act of remembrance for people who make sacrifices at the behest of elected governments?
And the problems with this argument? I can see three:
1. The money goes exclusively to British service charities.
No-one is stopping parallel commemorations for the causalities who were sponsored by movements other than the British state.
2. You can’t criticise Sinn Fein supporters for ignoring this ‘republican’ notion that all citizens of the British state bear collective responsibility for it’s actions because of Sinn Fein’s continuing selective abstentionism
Good point. However, that selective abstentionism is, in itself, a fudge. You can no more be ‘a bit abstentionist’ than you can be ‘a bit pregnant.’
3. Remembrance may ostensibly be about the noble aims set out above, but in reality, it’s just another opportunity for pro-Union chauvinism in the north of Ireland (the contrast between the way that poppies are worn in the north of Ireland and how it is worn elsewhere in the UK illustrates this) and tub-thumping jingoism elsewhere
Yes – ideally the way that this remembrance is conducted should be modified to accommodate those those who don’t currently engage with it. Unionists may complain that this would be an unwarranted act of appeasement, but I’d counter this by saying that the modification is not just something that should be aimed at Irish republicans, but at all of those who are ambivalent or hostile to acts of remembrance on the grounds that it seems to endorse foreign policy decisions that they don’t like.
Experience tells us that appeals to tone this down are likely to be fruitless as well. But if a minority of prominent republicans to start wearing poppies themselves, I suspect that this particular thorn would be removed?
A better, more engaged discussion about how military force is deployed can only be a good thing. The way we instruct the armed services is the cornerstone of that debate, and remembrance is a very potent opportunity for reflection. One that we should all influence. It would be a gamechanging move for Gerry and Martin to be wearing poppies next year.
you don’t seem to understand that as far as Irish nationalists and republicans are concerned they are living in IRELAND and the UK is not part of their nation and its claim on part of Ireland is wholly illegitimate.
why are you and so many in britain so deperate to foist this emblem on people who are not of your nation? this is not just poppy fascism but is imperialism straight. it is this kind of thinking that has got britain into so many wars and occupations. OTHER PEOPLE@S HOMES ARE NOT YOUR HOMES AND OYHER PEOPLE@S PROBLEMS ARE NOT YOURS. Why not take Voltaire’s advice: GROW YOUR OWN GARDEN….
Good post Paul, but I would argue that you cannot be a “whole-hearted democrat” if you believe in the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statelet. Wasn’t its foundation conceived against the will of the majority (including a majority in two of the six counties – Fermanagh and Tyrone – which would go on to form Northern Ireland)?
I apologise for going off-topic a bit, as you do make some good points.
“why are you and so many in britain so deperate to foist this emblem on people who are not of your nation?”
Mainly because we love to opress other people, particularly the Irish who we think are inferior to us.
Also we think the Red of the Poppy brings out your lovely green eyes
When a country goes to war, it is always in all of our names
We don’t have an agreed definition of our country so your point falls. The poppy is a matter for the British and the only problem Irish people have with it is when it is foisted on us.
Of course some Irish people might choose to wear one for various reasons and that’s their business. But it is not a question for the nation as a whole.
The Irish nation consists of those people who give their primary political loyalty to Ireland.
paul,
I think all you’ve done is build yourself a nice little sanctuary, where the state has you in compliance and servitude.
The fact that you can kiss ass without feeling guilty is proof of the unholy alliance.
welcome!
Surely the whole point about remembrance is that for it to have any meaning it has to be voluntary. You can not fake it and certainly not force it.
If someone doesn’t want to remember British soldiers who have lost their lives in various conflicts, both just and unjust, thats their business.
The problem with the poppy is that just as it remembers anti Nazi heroes so it also remembers pro imperialist troops in Ireland, Aden, Cyprus, Africa, the Middle East etc.
“would argue that you cannot be a “whole-hearted democrat” if you believe in the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland statelet. Wasn’t its foundation conceived against the will of the majority (including a majority in two of the six counties – Fermanagh and Tyrone – which would go on to form Northern Ireland)?”
1. Loads of states which are accepted as legitimate NOW were not founded according to principles of democracy. Look at America built in part in institionalised slavery, genocide against the native American Indians and annexation of bits of other countries.
2. Arguably there were two nations in Ireland. So the will of the majority of the island is not directly relevant, it is the majorities of the relevant communities. This was accepted by some within Sinn Fein before partition, including SF vice-president Michael O Flanagan.
3. SF’s overwhelming election victories were clearly based on a programme which envisaged independence for the 26 but there were mixed messages from SF regarding the 6 counties (which the British government had already identified as being to be considered differently in the context of Home Rule) and its policies. So it is questionable whether the majority was voting for independence against the will of the majority of Unionists in the 6.
Dub and Henry94,
There isn’t a state in the world that has an ‘agreed definition’ in the sense that you mean. If Ireland were a single political entity, that agreed definition wouldn’t exist either, as Unionists would threaten to withdraw their consent.
I understand the argument that a lot of Republicans don’t like it, and even that a minority of Republicans are committed to defying it by any means at their disposal. But like it or not, most Republicans currently (grudgingly) endorse it, pay taxes, vote and have like-minded representatives sitting in Stormont. All I’m saying is that taking a more active part in a shared act of remembrance would be consistent with that.
Percy, I feel a degree of guilt about the fact that the state I live in does things that I find unconscionable. Did I suggest otherwise?
“The Irish nation consists of those people who give their primary political loyalty to Ireland.”
So Unionists are not part of the Irish nation.
Terry,
Totally agree – and that’s what I argued. I’m not saying Republicans should be frog-marched up Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday.
I’m just saying that it would be a good thing to do.
Here’s a scenario for you. Imagine I were an Irish Republican who was ashamed of the ambivalence that the Irish Republican movement had towards Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s. Imagine I were proud of the fact that some Irishmen volunteered to join in the war – whether it was in the British or (as some did) Canadian forces.
In that scenario, you would have an modern Irish republican who would want to join in the commemoration of those people. It’s not *that* different from the position of a British opponent of the Iraq war who supported (say) NATO action in Kosovo?
I have to agree with Henry on this one.
The Royal British Legion is there “to ensure that the nation has the opportunity to pay its respects to its Service men and women, past and present”.
It’s for the British nation and not the Irish one.
As for the Irish minority over the border living in the UK – Remember the Agreement, British, Irish or both…..
Paul,
You raise an interesting point, yet one which I think is flawed. Though yes tax contributions have gone towards paying for this war, and others, I believe it is a fundamental necessity to protest against actions of a government which I believe border on illegality and put the citizens of both their own and many other countries in jeopardy (often unnecessarily). This protest could come in the form of a protest march (I assume you don’t object to them) or it could manifest in my dislike for wearing a poppy.
My reasoning is in two main thrusts. Firstly, your argument that “You can’t pay for something one minute and deny responsibility for it the next” is a reasonable one, except in the context of taxation. I am coerced into paying taxes, I cannot withhold them. My birth was enough to sign the social contract that dictates the necessity of taxation, a need with which I normally agree. Though taxation has therefore paid for the war, it is ultimately not a true signifier of consent from the people.
Secondly, in your apparently Hobbesian view of sovereignty, the sovereign forfeits its right to govern when its actions act contrary to the commonwealth. I believe that the Afghanistan (and more specifically) Iraq wars have contributed greatly to the level of threat that both the USA and UK face, never mind the level of danger inflicted upon innocent Afghan civilians without their consent (but I suppose they were taxed by the Taliban pre-2001, so I guess they must support them). Thus, the sovereign has been derelict in its duty and must relinquish its position as unquestionable leader.
Finally, on a slightly lesser front, one can be a full blooded democrat and be morbidly embarrassed by the association of the word democracy with the standard of government that exists in most countries of the world today, including the UK and Ireland. We get the right to select, from a minute pool of parties and candidates, an elected dictatorship that is effectively safe from public opinion for up to 5 years (such as the millions who marched against the Iraq war paid taxes and were ignored).
I believe that I should be able to show my disgust for the wars in which the UK has engaged itself in any way possible, and if that were to be through not purchasing a poppy, then that should be fine. If you want to support the troops, bring them home, they’ll be safer, and we’ll be safer.
None of which is why I don’t wear a poppy, but suffice to say I dislike your argument.
In condensed form: Not in my name is thoroughly justified in this context. I agree poppies should be voluntarily worn.
Paul,
“You can’t pay for something one minute and deny responsibility for it the next.”
I do deny that responsibitily. At the end of the day, my vote cannot influence the governement of the uk.
I do and have paid taxes. However I have paid them because they were simply taken out of my wages.
If I could have gor away without paying them I would – I was forced to, ultimately by force, I would be imprisoned if I did not pay.
I am not there resposnible in anyway for British militarism and therefore I do not were a poppy, which only remembers the perpertaters of violence and not their victims.
Ciaran,
Thanks for that. Taking your points one-by-one:
1. No problem with protest marches or other forms of protest. I don’t understand how not wearing a poppy is a protest against the British state though. The poppy isn’t even a universally British symbol.
2. That is, with due respect, a matter of opinion (I’m not saying you’re wrong either). You are saying that the British government have made a strategic decision that they think serves their interests – and that they are mistaken. Fair enough. The most appropriate place for use to rule upon this is at a general election.
3. You seem to be saying that – because democracy is an imperfect expression of the General Will, that the argument doesn’t stand up. Fair enough – it’s a reasonable argument but one that I think puts a burden of proof on you: As it happens, I think that European nations at this point in history are at a historical pinnacle in terms of individual freedom and inclusive democracy. They could be better, but they aren’t better anywhere else and have never been. This post made the point better than I can here: http://freethinkecon.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/clarkson-dalrymple-the-patriotic-urge-to-leave-the-country/
My argument is that collective acts of remembrance make for better debate. If you’re right about Afghanistan and Iraq, in an ideal world, better debate would have kept the British state out.
The big hole in my argument is that democratic debate is unduly influenced by powerful pressure groups and jingoistic elements in the media. The debate that I’m saying should happen probably won’t happen. I think that so many political arguments primarily act to displace this question. For me, it’s the most important one.
GGN,
Is your it your main point that the electoral system is not the right one?
Otherwise you seem to be arguing that only people who vote for the party that win a general election should pay taxes?
The poppy doesn’t *only* remember the perpetrators of violence. It remembers those who died in the war against Fascism. We can argue about the other wars that the British military have been involved in if you like, but I’d argue that some of them were justified. Again, it’s not about endorsing *all* British military actions – that was one of my key points.
“Is your it your main point that the electoral system is not the right one?”
No.
I am saying that as an Irish person I only pay taxes to the British government, regardless of which party, as if I do not they would send me to jail.
Fine, but people have responsibilites and life is short.
Do not take the fact that I have paid them to be a tacit agreement with anything they do.
I haven’t argued that paying taxes is tacit agreement with any government. My argument is based on the notion of the social contract – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Your vote *can* influence the government of the UK if you are eligible to vote in the UK. Admittedly, that influence varies depending upon electoral considerations – which is why I was asking you about the electoral system.
Paul,
There exists no contract between myself and the British government as I have not consent to be rule by them.
Paul,
You are not listening.
“We get the right to select, from a minute pool of parties and candidates, an elected dictatorship that is effectively safe from public opinion for up to 5 years (such as the millions who marched against the Iraq war paid taxes and were ignored).”
Voting every 5 years is but one feature of a liberal democracy. Freedom of speech expression, assembly, the rule of law, freedom of religion, equality before the law irrespetive of ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation.
It is fine to highlight the limits of democracy and the extent to which the truth differs from spin. The fact is that there is no equality of political power in an unequal and class bound socieities, that certain ideas are given greater weight and legitmacy than others.
But to suggest or imply that these limits mean the whole thing is a sham or illusion little or no better than other forms of goverenance and political rule, is foolish to say the least. For all the limits of Capitalist democracy it wouldn’t take a seconds thought if I had had to choose between leaving in Eastern or Western Germany.
Our democracy, rights and liberties are a great advance which should be celebrated and defended as such by anyone of a truly progressive perspective bent, even if there is much further to travel towards true human emancipation and social justice. They are genuinely better than what went before it in the West and what still goes on in much of the globe. Even anti-Capitalist radicals like Marx recognised the substantive value of democratic norms and arrangements.
In terms of your specific comments I think you have stretched the truth. As for your “minute pool” I think you’ll find a wide range of political parties challenging in almost every election, from Far Left to Far right, including Greens, Anti EU groups and single issue parties. To call an elected government which is subject to constant scrutiny in the media, Parliament, and subject to court decisions an “elected dictatorship” is to seriously devalue the correctly pejorative meaning of dictatorship.
The Iraq war was supported by a majority of the UK electorate (notwithstanding the opposition of a loud and large minority who opposed it). That is not a sufficient argument to justify the war but is simply a response to your comment.
Paul, the difficulty with the poppy is that it does not discriminate in who it remembers. Whilst I am proud of the Irish people who fought the Nazis, I’m equally proud of those who fought them in Spain.
At the same time I pity the Irish who died in WW1 in a family squabble, and am at the least “conflicted” about Irish people who have served in the British armed forces in upholding their imperial ambitions.
I can and do appreciate the human loss, particularly of their families, but do I wish to remember their “sacrifice?” No.
The poppy, as the emblem of the British Legion, is clear that it remembers All British service people who have died since WW1 in the service of the nation.
Considering that this includes those who fought in Ireland against Irish Republicans, be it in 1920 or 1972, including both Bloody Sundays, I am unable to wear it, although i fully respect the right of others to do so.
Terry – in my view that is entirely reasonable.
The point is one can assemble all the intellectual arguments in the world about who and what the poppy is remembering, the many Irishmen who fought on the right side in WW2 and those tho fought so bravely in WW1 (not so obviously a just war in which all humanity had an interest), that is does not indicate support for all British wars and actions, but it is symbol which carries with it a certain amount of baggage.
An Irish Catholic, particularly if from a strongly nationalist or Republican perspective, is always going to find much of that baggage very difficult to swallow.
Frankly I have much bigger complaints against Irish Republicanism, particularly modern Irish Republicanism, that their opposition to wearing a poppy. Think this topics now been done to death.
Terry,
I’m not unsympathetic to your arguments, but my point is less about what those wars were about than the notion of remembrance as part of a social contract. I really don’t regard wearing a poppy as an endorsement of every British policy decision.
The social contract often has ugly overtones. I think we can’t do without it. To get all of the benefits – to be saved from Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ – we consent to be part of processes that we often don’t have full control over – the ‘unholy alliance’ that percy (above) says we should feel a bit guilty about.
The poppy has to be, at least in part, an expression of collective guilt. Who can look the child of a soldier unflinchingly in the eye without the knowledge that they were a small part of a process that sent their father into harm’s way – even if we opposed the conflict in question? We paid the taxes. We didn’t win the democratic argument. In the past, they were sometimes even conscripts, and as a democratic socialist, I’d argue that there is some comparison between the conscript and the modern military wage-slave.
I understand your Bloody Sundays argument, but there’s an even stronger one: There are people who are actually in the employ of the British Army who may be ambivalent or even opposed to some wars that they fight in. They could desert – but most don’t.
By the same token, you can refuse to pay your taxes (but you probably won’t).
I’m not saying we should do all of this uncomplainingly either. If we don’t like a particular war, we should protest and vote accordingly.
Martin and Gerry will never wear a poppy, obviously.
Good article and good posts-thanks everyone.
“Loyalist terror gangs” is 9 points on Slugger Bingo
For 10 points you needed to have used “so-called Loyalist murder gangs”.
“croppies” is 8 points
All in all not a bad effort.
As far as the British population are concerned any notion of the social contract applying in the matter of the invasion of Iraq was completely negated when the government lied to parliament and to the people. In lying so egregiously Blair negated any implied consent of the people to this war, any general will as you have it, misused his powers and entered a war acting upon his own will at the behest of a foreign power, the United States of America. Furthermore the British people’s witholding of any consent to this war was firmly and clearly established in the million plus demonstration against it and in every opinion poll, debate and vox pop up to and after the invasion.
As far as Irish Republicans are concerned it is laughable if not downright contemptuous to introduce this argument of the general will to apply to any implied social contract between them and the British state which fought a bloody war to suppress the general will of the Irish people who voted overwhelmingly for the Republic and rejected England’s right to rule in any part of Ireland.
In any case all this hooey about a social contract and the general will is just that – hooey. It is merely a confection, a conceit of Rousseau’s to attempt to explain how he saw the interaction of social relations between the governors and the governed and one which has been confused and applied as and how anyone who wished would apply it. It has no status in law, no meaning in law and would only ever be drafted into the law of dictatorships where the idea of the general will resting with one individual or one small group comes in very handy indeed as the Caudillo, or whatever, in the name of the general will, busies himself beheading and imprisoning all who speak against him.
There’s the old joke about the fascist wedding of the year where General Will marries good old Laura Norder, but I don’t suppose it’s the type of humor that tickles in Paul’s circle.
Rory,
On the eve of the Iraq War, according to Ipsos Mori, 38% answered yes to the question “Would you approve or disapprove of a military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein?”. Clearly not a majority but perhaps a plurality?
What “lies” did Blair tell Parliament?
And in view of Blairs strong personal convictions and the content of his ’99 Chicago speach it is ridiculous to argue that he only favoured the war because he did what Bush told him or was America’s Poodle
We’re well into hair-splitting now Rory.
Firstly, once you’ve won an election, a Parliamentary majority is what you need to justify anything within the law. If the British government had ‘lied to parliament’ in the terms you say it had, Parliament would have to deal with that. It didn’t.
You’re wrong about the opinion polls – for large stretches of the Iraq war (including the point of invasion) IIRC there was a majority in favour. The ‘million marchers’ (I was one) are entirely irrelevant. Over 1 million people signed a petition against road-pricing – doesn’t mean a government shouldn’t do it.
The British people did not withhold their consent in any recognisable way. Labour won the subsequent general election and the biggest opposition party – the Tories – was also a supporter of the war.
On Irish republicans and the General Will, mainstream Republicanism has come to terms with the British state on this. They aim to unite Ireland by peaceful democratic means. There’s nothing inconsistent about this.
On your wider contempt for the notion of the General Will, I don’t understand your ‘no status in law’ point. You either accept the idea or you don’t. I do.
Whoever Caudillo is, he’d not get away with beheading anyone he likes in a liberal democracy.
I’ve tried to respond to this several times but no luck so far, seems to be a bandwidth problem. It’s simply offensive to suggest that any Irish Republican would have any obligation to donate to any charity, especially one that might offer support to a former soldier who had committed murder here.
Put in short I would rather burn my money than donate it to the forces of the British state who have murdered and enslaved people around the globe, and who it appears have yet to learn a thing, cause they still haven’t stopped. Every country the Brits invade (and subsequently get people like Brit above to swallow all the bullshit propoganda, and get them to forget the whitewashing/suspicious suicides/WMD?!) they create conflicts that rage for centuries, and still they learn nothing.
Brit has stated that the people of Iraq wanted the British and Americans to flatten Baghdad, indiscriminately murdering hundreds of woman and kids asleep in their beds. They were begging for their electricity to be cut off, for a curfew to be introduced, to lose water supplies and employment, to watch their kids (80% of em) suffer from malnutrition, and to run the daily raffle of being killed – these Iraqis were begging them to come in.
Then the troops arrived a staggering 82% of these fickle savages changed their minds (this according to an opinion poll carried out in Iraq by the beloved British MOD). more than 99% of respondents said security was worse now, 67% feel less secure now.
Now I’ve seen how you can explain that a staggering 82% wanted the invasion before Saddam left (although there would be no figures for that as a survey would be impossible, so we’ll believe your propoganda for the sake of argument) how do you explain, if your motives were to remove the oppressive dictator and free the Iraq people, how come more than 2/3 of the people felt safer when Saddam was boss?
You are a propoganda machine. It’s all you have on this subject, if you had even had some point of contention with how things had been done, or how they now are, you would have seemed much more genuine. But the truth of the matter is, as it always is, that the British are the high and mighty, freeing the oppressed, and teaching the savages civilization. Never having done wrong Brit, must be marvelous, how did you manage to invade dozens of countries, and still have been so just and supreme?
My bottom line is this. Fuck the poppy, and fuck the brave boys, they are lucky to be priveleged enough to be paid to die, unlike their victims. If you have to give money to a charity, the victims of the invasion of Iraq could do with it a hell of a lot more than the surviving squaddies, who got what they wanted when they joined the army in the first place.
Is there an equivalent to “Poppy Day” in the RoI?
If the only answer is the “Easter Lily”, is it generally observed there?
Unfortunately the Poppy seeks to commemorate the military history a ‘nation’ which has a deeply unsavoury past as many in Ireland, India, Aden etc etc etc will be able to attest to.
And john makes a rather good point at post 2.
Unfortunately the minority (who were a political entity, not a nation, arguably or otherwise) rejected the democratic will of the people of Ireland. The continued attempt by some on here to portray pre-partition unionists has having superior rights in the single political entity of Ireland (as it was seen by Westminister also) only serves to illustrate the fact that the Irish were indeed inferior in their own land.
‘ On the eve of the Iraq War, according to Ipsos Mori, 38% answered yes to the question “Would you approve or disapprove of a military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein?”.’
Would that be “Yes, we approve”, or “Yes, we disapprove”, Brit, or are you able to tell the difference?
If it is, as the nonsensical context that follows implies, “Yes, we approve” then I think we can all agree, without any need of direction from you, that 38% is “clearly not a majority”. Last time I checked the maths on this it was waht used to be called, “a minority”. A minority pretty overwhelmed by the 62% that did not care to express approval (and that in a poll designed to find approval) we might think.
And don’t give us Blair’s strong personal convictions, please, the only lasting reputation that will attach to him will be as the Great Liar who spent his final years smiling for the camera and trading sanctimoniousness for money. At which task, we must concede, he does excel.
It seems that was an ICM poll figure.
Ipsis Mori adds certain caveats and makes for interesting reading.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/ca.aspx?oItemId=287
Brit please keep on sneering at the world and us Irish and our pathetic views please keep up the sneering comments.If any old johnny foreigners are reading this blog who had the misfortune to be fuked over by the BRITISH EMPIRE in the past they will see that we still have to listen to you smart mouthed chumps.
“1. The money goes exclusively to British service charities.
No-one is stopping parallel commemorations for the causalities who were sponsored by movements other than the British state.”
Yes they are. I work in an FE college. Supposedly we have a ‘neutral’ working environment for staff and students which means that GAA tops/scarves/bags are banned and any student found wearing them must be disciplined. However, the PSNI and British Army can display recruitment posters for 16 year olds and have recruitment stalls at careers day.
Furthermore, Poppys are fine but any student found wearing an Easter Lily must be reported to the Head of Department and formally disciplined.
As Jim Royle would say ‘Neutral my arse!’
I’m delighted with the way things regarding the poppy have changed over the last few years.
It was previously a symbol of rememberance about the WW1 & WW2 and a charity for ex soldiers. It was accepted in a desperate & extreme manner by Unionists only (excluding nationalist & Catholics) as a form of uber-British identity; similar to a Last Night of the Proms.
Nowadays it’s become a symbol of Little Britishers in Britian and their harkening back to the days of the Empire. It’s become obligatory on the TV media as a display of the lack of individualism. In years to come it’ll be an embarassment because of the lemming-like support of military mis-behaviour eg. Kenya, Malaya & Ireland.
In RoI it brings to the fore those who start their arguements with “we as a mature nation can embrace other identities such as…” …only Britishness !!!! The undercurrent of their fetish for all things Westminister & British military is obvious and lightly cloaked in acceptance of the poppy. I wish all of those Blue Shirted, West-brits wore their poppies around Dublin, Cork, NY, Gortahork & Glenamaddy and stopped hiding behind their letters to the editor of the Irish Thames.
Paul “Again, it’s not about endorsing *all* British military actions – that was one of my key points.”
Wrong. You can’t wear a poppy and have partial support for the British military. The poppy is a symbol of support for British military including Bloody Sunday, support of Stormont, shoot to kill, Gibraltar. Hence the reason it not accepted in RoI and by nationalists in NI…. why else do you think we hate it? Why would you want us to accept it (think of republicans demanding equal acceptance of the lilly at Easter on the Beeb & UnionstTV)?
Two things – just to correct a few misunderstandings.
Firstly, I’m not proposing that anyone should be forced to wear a poppy. I agreed with Brian Walker’s notes on ‘Poppy Fascism’ (though for the record, I really don’t like that use of the word ‘Fascism’ – when it’s taken so lightly it reminds me of the boy who cried ‘wolf’) – if anything, I’m saying that a lot of the people who *do* wear poppies shouldn’t bother.
I’m urging people who currently refuse to wear it on principle to revisit that belief.
Secondly, mytuppenceworth, your big bold ‘wrong’ is demonstrably utter bollocks. I wear a poppy without endorsing most of those actions. I could wear it without endorsing *any* of them. Millions of other people do so. It isn’t a universally British symbol. Fuck it, it doesn’t even *need* to be a Poppy, though there is an obvious appeal to the idea that the poppy – as a symbol – should be rescued from the jingoistic elements that have captured it and returned to it’s original purpose – remembering the poor cannon fodder that was mindlessly sent to certain death in WWI.
I’m arguing that when states send people to die – paid for by the taxes that we all pay – it should be a cause for reflection. Not another opportunity for whataboutery, triumphalism, jingoism, conformist cant or the rehashing of old arguments about the justice or otherwise of individual conflicts. It’s about improving the shared understanding of how states use their military capacity. It’s about making democracy better.
One outcome, for instance, could be that the British public could be challenged to accept the consequences of what opinion pollsters tell us to be their desire to expend fewer British lives in Afghanistan.
The UK has, for many years, maintained troop levels consistent with a desire to be seen as contributors to the role of ‘world policeman.’ If the British public have lost their appetite for this role, or if they want to do it in the highly risk-averse way that it was done during the Kosovo conflict, then surely there is a case for reducing troop numbers?
This always happens with comment threads – the further down you get, the more commenters you find who have – at best – skim-read the post, ignored most of the comments and just trotted out some memebot line that they’ve used plenty of times before.
Paul – I can’t see how you can regard the ‘Not in my name’ position as ‘dangerous’ and as at odds with democracy unless you buy Rousseau’s rather odd view that anyone on the losing side of a majority vote has simply made a mistake and should change their mind at once. Not much room for democratic dissent on that view. As you say – it’s altogether ‘too republican’.
What is ‘Not in my name’ if not an expression of legitimate dissent? Furthermore this stance can be linked diretly to Hobbes’s social contract (a version of social contract which no democrat should touch with a bargepole becuase it is designed to eliminate dissent and justify absolute sovereign power).
Hobbes argues that in contracting to establish government, we become the authors of the sovereign’s actions. This doesn’t mean that he’s our agent, it means that we become responsible for everything he does, without us having any control over him. Now I can see why a government bent on engaging in controversial military adventures might find this view pretty convenient – and I’ve heard it being parroted on the BBC already this week, however, nobody in their right mind should have any truck with it (much as I like Rousseau, he makes essentially the same, undemocratic, mistake).
Against this backdrop, it seems that ‘not in my name’ captures the important idea that we have a positive duty to register our dissent with decisions we believe to be morally wrong – it’s not enough to passively wait until the next election and allow the government to assume tacit consent for their actions. As democrats we may be bound to comply, but we are not bound to sing along…
And this is to say nothing about the hopelessly medeaeval nature of our existing political institutions which scarcely ensure everyone an equal opoprtunity to influence collective decision-making…
The whole poppy thing just seems to be gathering more and more momentum. Now everyone who works in television MUST wear one and if they don’t, they will be ostracised and could even lose their job.(Not officially, but they know the score if they don’t wear one)
To many republicans and nationalists the poppy represents Britishness and is a commemoration to the British War dead. Lately it has attempted to include everyone who has died, but it’s essentially a British emblem.
In a new NI, with prity of esteem a main plank of the democratic process, could it ever be contemplated that the Irish war dead could be commemorated in a similar fashion?
No = Double standards.
But then why are you not surprised?
“Put in short I would rather burn my money than donate it to the forces of the British state who have murdered and enslaved people around the globe” Neil
And does this attitude to donation apply to the forces of any nation/state which have mudered and/or enslaved people (I assume you are using enslavement to mean occupy or colonise)? In which case you would also presumably rather burn your money than to donate it to the armed forces of:-
America
Spain
France
Portugal
Belgium
Holland
Germany
Italy
Russia
China
Vietnam
India
Pakistan
Etc etc
Or is this just an anti British thing?
You say that I am “a propoganda machine. It’s all you have on this subject, if you had even had some point of contention with how things had been done, or how they now are, you would have seemed much more genuine.”
Now I could say that the numerous supporters of Republicanism on here are propaganda machines in the sense that the express a Republican view. In that sense I don’t see how it constitutes a criticism. If you are implying that I am in the pay of the British state or something then all I can say is that you are wrong. I supported the Iraq war from a progressive left-liberal perspective. A small minority current of the Left did so – see the likes of Irwin Mitchell, Norm Geras, Oliver Kamm, David Arronovitch – and those arguments are best encapsulated in the book “A Matter of Principle – Humanitarian Argument for War in Iraq” edited by Thomas Cushman. In so doing I was not motivated by British jingoism or a desire to re-create the Empire but by humanitarian, internationalist and anti-pacifist imperatives of the type which led a much larger part of the Left to support the interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leonne. Put simply my view was that Saddam’s regime was especially totalitarian and genocidal and left unmolested would have become a potential Pol Pot Cambodia but with military might and possibly nukes in the powderkeg of the middle east.
You may think my view stupid or unrealistic but at least accept that it was a good faith progressive view.
Although I don’t usually emphasise it in my arguments with the trite “illegal war of imperialism based on lies” mob on here I fully accept and admit that the outcome in Iraq, the aftermath, was absolutely terrible and far far worse than I had anticipated. The initial war of liberation and overthrow of the Baathists (the one which the peacniks had said would be difficult and long and lead to millions of civillians casualties) was relatively swift and easy without large numbers of deaths. But I did not forsee the outcome of terrorism and civil war and a complete breakdown in civil society. And although it is fatuous to blame America and Britain for the actions of local sectarians and Baathists, and outside forces like AG and Iran (as if the arabs are like children with no moral responsbility for their actions) the allies, and particularly Bush, badly botched the planning and execution of the occupation and stabilisation. They bear some reaponsbility and culpability for so doing.
The situation is a horrible tragedy and although it is slowly getting better it was a hell on earth for many Iraqis. All those involved in the invasion (and to a lesser extent armchair generals/supporters) cannot just ignore these issues, least of all from an emotional and human perspective.
Because it turned out so badly some of the progressive supporters purported to retrospectively withdraw their support and I have reflected on this. But I dont and continue believe it was the right thing looking at the medium to long term and because the outcome had the invasion not happened would probably have been worse or just as bad (in the case of an intervention deferred). This ultimately involves trying to compare what happened with what would have happened in an altnernative reality and so it is impossible to have complete certainty.
There are difficult arguments as to whether the war was a good thing but most of the kneejerk arguments against (oil, occuption, imperialism, lies, illegality, Israel, neo-cons) are devoid of merit.
Do you really think that our existing political institutions are medieval? Really?
The thing missing from your argument is any acknowledgment that we live in a liberal democracy.
Sure – it’s imperfect, but you and I are still among the most fortunate 0.1% of historical humanity in enjoying the optimum combination of rights of self-determination, civil liberties, personal welfare, health and security, equality-before-the-law and all of the other lovely stuff that we’d miss if it were gone.
The social contract does not justify absolute sovereign power in a liberal democracy. It just doesn’t – in many different ways. It does underline the legitimacy of the rule of law and allow states to behave in a resolute manner.
Personally, as someone on the left, I believe I have infinitely more to gain from the notion of the social contract than I have to lose.
The notion ‘not in my name’ legitimises a superficially attractive retreat into individualism. It’s particularly annoying when you hear people who don’t vote saying it. When you don’t take the opportunity to vote against a government that does something you didn’t approve of and then say that you bear no responsibility for that government’s actions, it brings to mind that line (from memory) about bad people doing what they want because good people do nothing.
It’s a position that I’d find understandable coming from the libertarian right, but not the political centre or most of the left.
“Unfortunately the minority (who were a political entity, not a nation, arguably or otherwise) rejected the democratic will of the people of Ireland. The continued attempt by some on here to portray pre-partition unionists has having superior rights in the single political entity of Ireland (as it was seen by Westminister also) only serves to illustrate the fact that the Irish were indeed inferior in their own land. ” RS
I’ve missed you Stoney.
Firstly I like the Stalinist/Republican assertion that “you are not a nation” about another people. People who came from a different place, of a different religion, mindset and culture. Your views are at odds with a number of pre-partition Irish nationalists, including SF vice president Michael O Flanagan who said in 1916 “We can point out that Ireland is an island with a definitie boundary…National and geographic boundaries hardly ever coincide…Geography has worked hard to make one nation of Ireland; history has worked against it. The island of Ireland and the national unit of Ireland simply do not coincide”. Interestingly your final sentence implicitly acknowledges this because your use of the word “the Irish” actually means Irish Catholics (in the ethnic sense) and excludes Protestant-Unionists.
As to the democratic will of the people of Ireland, if we add together the Unionists in NE Ulster and the pro-Treaty votes in the Free State (in the 1923 election) there is an overwhelming majority which supported or accepted partition. Ulster Prods enthusiastially and Pro-Treaty Irish Catholics on the basis of an acceptance of a reality that the 6 counties could not and should not be coerced into the Free State.
“Nowadays it’s become a symbol of Little Britishers in Britian and their harkening back to the days of the Empire”
Presumably all the black and asian Brits I see wearing the poppy are gutted that the British empire was disbanded?
Paul –
I think it’s pretty obvious that our political institutions are largely medieval – parliaments are a medieval institution that long predate universal suffrage – which has got to be the minimum condition to be met before we can call any of these institutions democratic. Liberal democracy is less than 100 years old and still has a long way to go before we can really claim that everyone has anything more than a formally equal opportunity to influence decision making – on that we seem to agree. We also agree that we’re relatively fortunate to have even these imperfect institutions.
My point was simply that if we’re going to start waving the social contract around, then we should mind the gap between existing instiutions and those which – in social contract speak – free and equal persons could rationally/reasonably agree to. It’s not at all clear that our institutions really do meet this test. Hobbes sets the bar so low that all sorts of regimes can meet his conditions, and I don’t think Hobbes-flavoured ‘realism’ has any place on the left.
If we were keen to improve the quality of our democracy, we should probably worry less about electoral turnout for example and more about increasing accountability and participation in decision making (perhaps by committing our representatives to deliberative polling exercises in their constituencies as part of the job of the representative, for example). The relative lack of opportunities to participate in democratic politics outside of voting in general elections reflects the pre-modern nature of most of these institutions.
I agree with you about apathetic non-voters – these people really do afford governments a blank cheque to count them as giving their tacit consent to whatever they do. The people who actively dissent under the banner of ‘not in my name’ are not obviously in this camp – I presume most of them do vote and they’re obviously politically active – so perhaps we haven’t been talking about the same group here.
“I’m urging people who currently refuse to wear it on principle to revisit that belief.””
O.K. already. I’ve revisited it. It remains as unappealing as ever, indeed moreso now that I’ve listened to the arguments put forward by Brit and yourself which are absymally lacking in any attempt to come to terms with the legacy of the British colonisation of Ireland.
So, having revisited that belief, it remains more entrenched than ever, my grandfather died at the Marne a victim of British colonialism and in his memory – you can shove yer poppy up yer arse!
“I’ve listened to the arguments put forward by Brit and yourself”
I’ve not argued that Irish Catholics should wear the poppy but above (and in other comments) that it is entirely understandable and reasonable for them to refrain from so doing.
Are *we* really that indistinguishable to you?
In my 10.15 post “Irwin Mitchell” should of course read “Mitchell Cohen”.
The former is a solicitors firm, the latter a US social democrat intellectual and editor of Dissent Magazine!
Paul – none of the major UK parties even stand in the North. On occassion they do but they haven’t done it consistently. Therefore it will never be possible for a voter in the North to cast a vote for the party that goes to war. Does this not undermine the idea of the social contract at least as far as it applies to the North?
If I buy a poppy – does it not send a signal that I believe that the UK government is not taking adequate measures to support its veterans. This is not a reflection or comtemplation of war. The stated aims of the British Legion don’t call for any of the things you mention in your article. You are attaching these sentiments to an organisation.
Furthermore, why not comtemplate all of the victims of war rather than just those that were paid to be there.
Doopa,
Fair point. I’d still argue that in elections we never vote to mandate *any* policy and that there generally shouldn’t be a direct input by citizenry into any elections (I’d generally oppose the use of referendums on principle, for example) so I don’t think that the direct link with specific policies should be a factor in this debate.
My argument is that – no matter what you think of specific issues – we pay taxes that (put crudely) buy bullets and body-bags. A shared period of reflection on that heavy responsibility would be good for democracy.