The American Independence movement surely had a much worse claim to independence than the Irish one. A better example would be India, perhaps.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
We cannot of course go back in time and read people's minds, but in your heart of hearts, do you actually believe that in 1918 most Irish people did not want independence? Seriously?
And do you consider American independence to be illegitimate, given that it did not come about through British legal and political frameworks?
Indeed.
I don't consider yourself to be the citizen of an illegitimate state. I do consider the First Dáil to be an illegitimate parliament.
So what made Irish independence legitimate? the Anglo-Irish treaty? And how did we get that? Through fighting a war, which gave us de facto independence and ensured that in practise, the fate of Ireland was decided in Dublin and not London. The Empire got its oath, they got us to call ourselves a free State instead of a Republic, but we gained independence, which is what we voted for (I notice you couldn't bring yourself to admit that deep down you know that is what we voted for in 1918).
So whose fault is it the war was fought? The Irish, for fighting for what we had democratically voted for, or the British for demanding that we swear an oath to your hereditary head of state before we would become de facto independent?
I highly doubt that the Empire would have just given Ireland any sort of independence if the IRA hadn't taken up arms.
I'm willing to bet that a majority of students at Trinity plainly didn't. Does this give them the right to resist SF by force, or declare war against a parliament they don't recognise? (In other words, would what Carson and his army buddies alsmost did in 1914 be justified?)
Do you consider Canada to be an illegitimate state because it did? (I asked first.)
And you would have gotten all of that in 1919 if you didn't fight a war, and all of it in 1914 if Europe didn't either.
Writing paragraphs takes time.
Does anyone have a source about Trinity wanting to remain part of the U.K. I can read? Because I can find it on wikipedia and I'd love to use it against those smug bastards sometime.
If you want to remain non-partisan, then yes. By saying no you are assuming a political stance.
I can't. Sorry.
o All it says that's even close is that after independence it "suffered a cool relationship with the new state".
So let me get this straight: The British Empire, upon seeing the results of the 1918 election which were clearly pro-independence, fought a war to stop Ireland being independent, having intended to give Ireland independence in 1919 anyway?
Why?
Of course not. Now your turn.
No - the government of Ireland (which was also the government of England, Scotland and Wales) fought a war to stop a particular group of people in Ireland attempting to illegally seize power against the wishes of a group of other people in Ireland.
The breakaway faction could have obtained all of its demands that didn't involve flags, oaths and national anthems through an entirely peaceful and democratic process (like Canada and Australia did), but it chose to use force instead. As such, they were able to get their flag, and I'll concede were probably able to become independent a few years earlier than they would have been by going the peaceful route; but that was in return for stirring up years of civil war, bitterness, anger and terrorism. I'm not aware that Canadians or Australians hold a particular grudge against Britain, except during cricket matches in the latter case.
That particular 'group of people' being the democratically elected representatives of the people of Ireland.
So the UK fought a war to stop Ireland becoming independent against the wishes of a certain group of people - but hold on, didn't the UK intend on giving us independence anyway? So it's OK for the UK to grant independence to Ireland against the will of a certain group of people, but not OK for the Irish people to take it against the will of a certain group of people? The UK was willing to fight against the Ulster covenant before WW1 - but its not OK for us to declare independence against the will of the Ulster covenant?
These are some Olympian-level mental gymnastics being engaged in here. I'd have far more respect for an argument which was openly based on the right of Imperial might than this.
I can't. Sorry.
Here you go.
You said de facto independence, what Asquith offered in 1914 was de facto independence (which is what Home Rule basically is; the right for x to legislate affairs of x in x's own parliament.) It wasn't de jure independence, no, but that leads us back to Stephen's flag argument.
So you accept that, in light of the fate of the other dominions and the fact that Home Rule had been a Liberal (the then ruling party, let me remind you) policy for thirty-odd years prior to the Rising and would have been achieved in 1914 were it not for the First World War, that a peaceful transition from de facto to de jure independence was possible? In other words, that the Rising and everything which occurred after it was completely unnecessary?
I do believe that the path that the US took was completely unnecessary (again, it's completely right to say that Collins had better reasons for wanting Irish independence than for Washington wanting American independence, IMO.) but this does not mean that I do not recognise the United States government to be the legitimate government of the United States. I would have recognised Nazi Germany as a legitimate state too; that does not mean I approve of Hitler or his government in any way.
So if Galloway decides to form the People's Republic of Bradford, he'd be justified in taking up arms against the government? After all, he's the democratically elected representative of half the people of Bradford.
Can you see why the Irish people may not have trusted the London govt to make good on its promises? Could the fact that large parts of the British army have legitimately been seen in Ireland as evidence that the UK state may not be trusted on this?
So if Galloway decides to form the People's Republic of Bradford, he'd be justified in taking up arms against the government? After all, he's the democratically elected representative of half the people of Bradford.
No, because there is absolutely no existing and never, ever has been any sense of independent sentiment, movement, separatist nationalism in Bradford. However, if Cornwall elected an almost entirely pro-independence set of MPs so the UK nullified the results of their election, then yes, they would be.
Isn't it so strange how you are so eager to affirm that a vote for SF is not necessarily a vote for independence, but a vote for Unionism is evidence that Trinity college wanted to stay part of the UK. It's almost as if you are incredibly biased.
That's because my argument is based on respect for democracy and the rule of law, while yours is based on nationalism and might-makes-right. Since I do accept that you're arguing from premises you don't normally take (in other matters), it's not surprising you're experiencing cognitive dissonance about this discussion.