As pointed out, Catholics couldn't hold political office or vote when the Act of Union was passed in 1801. Not exactly sporting.
And that has what to do with the 1920s vote by Northern Ireland to opt out of independence?
I'm not sure what you're referring to wrt "their parliament" voting for that in the '20's. Are you referring to the Irish Free State being was established as a dominion in 1922, (the six northern counties remaining as part of the United Kingdom) as a result of the Anglo-Irish treaty "ending" the Anglo-Irish war?
No, I'm refering to the clause in the Angle Irish treaty that allowed the Northern Ireland parliament to decide for itself whether to join in Irish independence or not. They chose not to.
None have given you an answer you like to hear.
No, Toad, none have given me answer.
What's yours? Why can't Ireland be divided?
Ireland is a small island, the size of South Carolina.
So it's size? Ireland is too small to be divided?
By area, the Republic of Ireland ranks 125th in the world, out of 270 countries. Ireland is actually in the upper half, area wise.
It's as big as Belgium and the Netherlands combined. Perhaps they should be forced to combine, too?
By population, it ranks 126th.
There are a great many countries smaller than Ireland, so size can't be the reason (unless you think all the smaller countries in the world should be absorbed by their neighbours, whether they like it or not?)
The simple solution is to ask everyone on the island how it should be.
Why? Why not ask everyone in the UK? Again, why is Ireland special? You keep saying it is, but you don't say
whyWhy must Ireland remain one, when other areas are subdivided?
Why is there fear of a general vote on "one Ireland" where the majority rules?
Perhaps in the same way the Canadians would oppose a poll in North America to see whether Canada should join the US. Should Canada decide, or should Canda and the US hold one vote, with the majority deciding?
People all over the world like to control their own destiny, not have it decided by their bigger neighbours.
We've already agreed it was wrong when that was done in the past, now you want to do it again in the future.
Nonetheless, the idea of gerrymandering has been used to create Northern Ireland. By carefully selecting the boundaries delineating who can vote, the result was assured before the vote was taken.
Did Irish independence rely on carefully dileneating the boundaries on who could vote? Don't remember the English, Welsh and Scots getting much say, for example.
And I don't remember the Russians being asked if Estonia should become independant, the Serbs if Slovenia should, the Egyptians if Israel should be formed.
Instead, those that stole Ireland from the Irish want to hold on to it as long as they can
No, instead those who live there get to decide for themselves.
Self determination for all peoples, it's in the UN charter.
Exactly. The Irish wished independence from their neighbors in England.
And who should decide that? The Irish themselves, or the whole of the UK? And if it's the Irish themselves, why when the Northern Irish wish independence isn't it the Northern Irish who decide? Why is it the larger entity then, when it's the smaller entity when the Irish are seeking independence?
Why does the basic principle change when you are applying it to the Irish?
Ah. Just not enough Brits in India to get away with creating a seperate nation.
No, not enough people there who wanted to be a seperate nation.
It is after all entirely up to the poeple of Northern Ireland, not the UK as a whole.
Indeed it does. An example of "how not to do it" just like Ireland.
Try looking at the history of Indian independence that preceeded it. Jinnah had been calling for a seperate Pakistan since 1940, Britain opposed it at first, it was only the massive communal violence following the war that changed the plans. Look up "Direct Action Day" to get a sample. Around 10,000 dead in the riots in Calcutta alone.
I'm absolutely amazed, though, that you think India should hold a vote on whether to absorb Pakistan. It seems foolhardy to me, especially when you look at the areas where the two populations are mixed, like Kashmir.
Perhaps after the Indians vote to absorb Pakistan, we could see Rwanda on a much, much larger scale? Perhaps the world's first nuclear civil war?
Good thing they didn't have a vote by the people who actually lived in those places.
How do you think they'd have voted? The Muslims had been agitating for independence, and would have voted for it. The Hindus didn't want partition, and would have voted against. Result: civil war, on a very large scale.
And even now you are advocating that India should be allowed to absorb Pakistan.
And what do we have today as a result of that most excellent solution of the UK dictating who shall live in what nation?
We have a timeline of conflict; three wars and an ongoing nuclear standoff.
3 small wars, but far more people have been killed in the various civilian massacres amongst those populations that are still mixed. For example, 2,000 dead in the 2002 Gujarat riots, 40,000 in Kashmir since 1990.
Good luck on your plan of forcing Pakistanis to acept being absorbed by India.
Good show
Yes, it's a shame. India was such a peaceful place before the British arrived, too [/sarcasm]
