Optimum handling of Irish nationalism

[LordTempest]

Yeah, conspicuously not "give those crazy Leinstermen, Munstermen and Connaughtmen what they want" though.

Only because the Liberals had already pledged to give Ireland a parliament prior to the war and had pledged to give them one for some thirty-odd years before that! Carson's behaviour and the Ulster Covenant were a reactionary backlash to Asquith's 1912 proposal for Irish Home Rule.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Only because the Liberals had already pledged to give Ireland a parliament prior to the war and had pledged to give them one for some thirty-odd years before that! Carson's behaviour and the Ulster Covenant were a reactionary backlash to Asquith's 1912 proposal for Irish Home Rule.

Then why did Ireland have to fight a war of independence to gain independence for 5/6ths of it?

 

[LordTempest]

Then why did Ireland have to fight a war of independence to gain independence for 5/6ths of it?

For Home Rule read devolution.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

For Home Rule read devolution.

So they fought a war with us to get what we wanted 9de facto total independence) a few years after they had apparently offered it top us anyway?

totally worth it

 

[LordTempest]

So they fought a war with us to get what we wanted 9de facto total independence) a few years after they had apparently offered it top us anyway?

totally worth it

The Liberals were in coalition with the IPP and had been since 1910, so Asquith and the Liberals couldn't really have avoided creating an Irish Parliament if they didn't want to (and most of them probably did want to create one; this had been party policy for some twenty to thirty years after all.) The reason why the Liberals couldn't deliver on their promise earlier was because the Tories were against and they had near total command of the (still un-neutered) House of Lords. This is also why we don't really see any serious backlash (or at least as serious as an armed rebellion) from Ulster until around 1912, by which Asquith had successfully neutered the power of the Lords and was in a position to deliver an Irish parliament (the Ulster backlash delayed things considerably), which, if I recall correctly, was to be phased in by about November 1914. War naturally puts all domestic and constitutional affairs on the backburner.

So like virtually everything else which went wrong in 20th Century history, it's ultimately all Princip's fault.

 

[KINGBEN]

So they fought a war with us to get what we wanted 9de facto total independence) a few years after they had apparently offered it top us anyway?

totally worth it

They fought a war to keep Ireland nominally a part of the empire. One could easily ask why the IRA fought as they gained something that was similar to what had already been promised.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

They fought a war to keep Ireland nominally a part of the empire. One could easily ask why the IRA fought as they gained something that was similar to what had already been promised.

Why was it worth fighting a war to keep Ireland nominally anything? We fought because we didn't want to be nominally or actually part of the empire. The UK fought to preserve some veneer of prestige by not being legally and formally kicked out on your arses by making Irish people swear a fictitious oath of allegiance.

We had no moral obligation to accept independence on British terms; Britain had a moral obligation to accept the will of the Irish people but instead they chose to fight a war.

 

[StephenT]

Why was it worth fighting a war to keep Ireland nominally anything?

Or conversely, Britain offered Ireland self-government, but many of the Irish* preferred to fight a war just so they could have a different flag as well. Was it worth it?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Or conversely, Britain offered Ireland self-government, but many of the Irish* preferred to fight a war just so they could have a different flag as well. Was it worth it?

That depends on who you think should make decisions about the status of Ireland: the Irish people or the British. If the Irish people elect an overwhelmingly pro-independence Dáil and the British decide to fight a war to prevent independence, who is to blame?

Are you seriously saying the Irish were wrong to fight for independence on their terms? How unbelievably right-wing and patriarchal. What you are saying is "if only the Irish people had the sense to do in Ireland what London wanted them to, none of this would have happened". Astoundingly imperialist mindset.

 

[LordTempest]

Who has the right to make decisions about the status of Trinity College, whose electors voted to stay in the union?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Who has the right to make decisions about the status of Trinity College, whose electors voted to stay in the union?

The government of Ireland, as elected to the Dáil.

 

[LordTempest]

The government of Ireland, as elected to the Dáil.

But not the voters of Trinity College? By extension, one could say the same vis a vis Southern Ireland and Westminster.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

But not the voters of Trinity College? By extension, one could say the same vis a vis Southern Ireland and Westminster.

No, because the voters of Trinity College were not (and are not) a state. Similarly, the voters of X-Factor shouldn't be allowed to secede from the UK.

 

[StephenT]

I'm pretty sure Ralph is trolling at this point... (Either that or he's just turned into a raving rightwing nationalist since September.)

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I'm pretty sure Ralph is trolling at this point... (Either that or he's just turned into a raving rightwing nationalist since September.)

I'm trolling because I said that the people of Ireland should have been the ones to decide Ireland's status... right.

 

[LordTempest]

No, because the voters of Trinity College were not (and are not) a state. Similarly, the voters of X-Factor shouldn't be allowed to secede from the UK.

But Ireland is and was a state?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

But Ireland is and was a state?

If you are asking if it is, yes, the Republic of Ireland exists. If you are asking if it was, yes, it was. I cannot believe you two are seriously challenging the notion that the Irish people, through their democratically-elected representatives, did not have the right to decide the status of Ireland, but instead should have gone along with whatever London wished. The mindset being displayed is incredible.

I wonder would it extend to the inhabitants of Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Philippines, Algeria etc or is it only British Imperialism that was good.

 

[LordTempest]

If you are asking if it is, yes, the Republic of Ireland exists. If you are asking if it was, yes, it was. I cannot believe you two are seriously challenging the notion that the Irish people, through their democratically-elected representatives, did not have the right to decide the status of Ireland, but instead should have gone along with whatever London wished. The mindset being displayed is incredible.

So possessing a Parliament is your criteria for being a state? In other words, the fact that Britain offered Ireland a parliament of its own (which was endorssed by the majority of Irish voters in 1910 and several elections before that) was akin to Britain offering Ireland statehood?

I wonder would it extend to the inhabitants of Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Philippines, Algeria etc or is it only British Imperialism that was good

Think of it this way: at least the people of Ireland had democratic representatives. The people of Poland and the Ukraine for instance didn't really have a say in the matter at all.

 

[StephenT]

If you are asking if it is, yes, the Republic of Ireland exists. If you are asking if it was, yes, it was. I cannot believe you two are seriously challenging the notion that the Irish people, through their democratically-elected representatives, did not have the right to decide the status of Ireland

I challenged whether it was worth killing people and blowing up buildings just to have a different flag (but otherwise the same rights).

We all have multiple intersecting sources of identity and loyalty. Your intense (and new-found) attachment to just one of them, to the extent that you support the idea of killing people who don't share that specific attachment, is like a throwback to a century ago.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I challenged whether it was worth killing people and blowing up buildings just to have a different flag (but otherwise the same rights).

And are you directing that at the IRA or the British state? In the end, both fought a war over the issue. The most salient point is that it was the Irish people's country, so if we want to have a different flag and a different status, that's our business, and if someone decides to use force to prevent that, then the war is their fault.

We all have multiple intersecting sources of identity and loyalty. Your intense (and new-found) attachment to just one of them, to the extent that you support the idea of killing people who don't share that specific attachment, is like a throwback to a century ago.

And your support for the British Empire killing people in a tiny nation which had overwhelmingly voted democratically for independence so they could extract an oath of intelligence to your unelected head of state is sadly all too predictable.

Your argument is like something from a Colonel Blimp cartoon. "If your country had just gone along with the conditions our country wanted to impose on you against your democratic will, all of this could have been avoided".


Let's make this more straightforward: did the Irish people have a right to self-determination in 1919? Yes or no will do fine, no nonsense about intersecting identities.