Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Benderino, Aug 3, 2003.
The Liechtenteinian crown?
Ireland was a part of the UK in the saem way that Hawaii is a part of the US - Ireland had full democratic representation in the UK parliament from the Act of Union in the early 19th century.
Pitt caused deep alienation and suspicion amongst the Catholic community by reneging on part of that deal by constraining Catholics' land rights and democratic participation - this was clearly morally wrong and politically damaging, but needs to be understood in a context where it was less than a century since the last counter-reformatory invasion of Britain.
Much was made of the cruelty of the English governing class during the Potato Famine, but the reality is that the rich ruling class didn't care that much about those starving in England, Scotland or Wales either. It was - IMHO - more a case of the ruling class being incapable of empathy with the poor than racial discrimination. None of that diminishes the very real suffering of the Irish people at that time.
Liberal governments in the UK were instrumental in pushing through a series of reforms increasing the rights of Catholics in Ireland (and the rest of the UK where they were also constrained, albeit to a lesser extent) through the 19th century and there were three attempts to provide Ireland with full autonomy and Home Rule, each time defeated by the Conservatives who relied on the Irish vote to increase their chances of power in the UK parliament.
The last came in the 1906-1910 period, and there has been intense debate as to whether successful passage of that Bill into law would have prevented the easter rising and Irish independence. Certainly undivided Ireland's position would have been similar to that of Australia or Canada; the principle doubts surround the reaction of the Protestants in N Ireland to the inevitable restrictions on their discriminatory treatment of Catholics in the six counties.
The rest, sadly, is history.....
Actually the Conservative governments did more for the Irish than the Liberals in the latter part of the 19th Century as Gladstones various acts had little real significance in comparison to ashbourne and balfours land acts
heh, yeah, that just shows how much most people know about the whole situation....
I suppose the Jews were at fault because of Hitler then?
that's one thing I don't quite get. What's the story with Scotland and Wales? they spend so long fighting the English and then now..... like, what? that confuses me.
no.... I think county voting would be terrible. No way in hell there'd ever be a united Ireland. Fermanagh, Tyrone and whatnot might join but then you've just lost a huge number of nationalists in NI, destroying any chance of a united Ireland.
yes, but that was hardly any use when they'd always be outvoted.
And what's the difference when only Protestants and therefore Unionists, therefore Brits were allowed be politicians?
yes.... I agree.
I'm going to have to disagree. They didn't have full democratic representation. Catholics (the majority) weren't permitted to take up seats in the House of Commons, and they were restricted in the professions they could take up. Until O'Connell, started his movement.
I can't believe this thread is still hovering around.
You can dig up the past and point the finger, but the fact of the matter is there is a large unionist population in the north that will never except a united Ireland and a large nationalist population that will not except direct rule from England.
The only realistic option is the North as a seperate state within Ireland with each side being reprented equaly in a democratic system.
Easier said than done, but although i hate to admit it, theres no other option.
Separate names with a comma.