American representation - what happens to Ireland?

In a timeline where the ARW is averted by a combination of Westminster representation and more formalised local autonomy, what would happen to Ireland?

Ireland's geographic proximity means there's a stronger case for direct integration with Britain, but obviously Grattan's parliament would want the American example applied to them. Would British bribery still be able to overcome this?

Also, its not clear whether the 1798 rebellion would still happen, depending on how the chain of event affects France. However, I imagine Westminster would be continually worried about Ireland as a staging post for invasion.

Another factor is Catholic emancipation, that the Whigs were pushing for a time. I can't imagine the British being happy with Catholic control of a local parliament, so maybe union gets round this tension.
 

Pangur

Donor
Ireland's geographic proximity means there's a stronger case for direct integration with Britain, but obviously Grattan's parliament would want the American example applied to them. Would British bribery still be able to overcome this?.

The solution as per the American colonies would give the english an altertaive answer to/for Ireland which would be to do the same and avoid the 1798 rebellion.

Another factor is Catholic emancipation, that the Whigs were pushing for a time. I can't imagine the British being happy with Catholic control of a local parliament, so maybe union gets round this tension.

Two totally different things at play, with out emancipation there wouls not be any long term peace. However Grattons parliament was by no manner of means in the hands of the cathlolic church. The irony of history is that more the English/British repressed the more that they pushed the Irish into the hands of the RC church
 
Actually, from what I gather, the only real reason Grattan's parliament was even given some of the powers was the fact that France entered into the Revolutionary War. The Irish Volunteers had to be called up to make sure France didn't land in Ireland while the British were busy dealing with the colonies/US. Because of the war & the Volunteers using their newfound position, Grattan was able to get Ireland more autonomy.

As for what would happen when the French Revolution breaks out ITTL, I can't say. I'd assume that the lack of an American example for revolting for self-determination, a largely-powerless parliament and the lack of the military experience ATL 1798 Irish revolutionaries would have due to no ARW would mean that a 1798 revolution would be crushed even more brutally or possibly avoided altogether.

That said, I can see that the British ITTL would probably be much more adaptable to giving the Irish parliament some more freedoms, with the example of the Americans probably looming large over any TTL discussions about Ireland in the 1770s-1780s. Probably, the reforms would take a much slower pace than the OTL one from pre-Grattan's parliament to Grattan's Parliament, owing to anti-Catholicism in Britain and among the Protestant Ascendancy.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In a timeline where the ARW is averted by a combination of Westminster representation and more formalised local autonomy, what would happen to Ireland?


Also, its not clear whether the 1798 rebellion would still happen, depending on how the chain of event affects France. However, I imagine Westminster would be continually worried about Ireland as a staging post for invasion.

Another factor is Catholic emancipation, that the Whigs were pushing for a time. I can't imagine the British being happy with Catholic control of a local parliament, so maybe union gets round this tension.

If the British have a successful model of federalism, then they will apply it to Ireland. The 13 colonies were about 3 million, England and Wales 10 million, and Ireland was 5 million. Going down this path means that the English Empire is transitioning to the British (all English speaking people) empire. When one adds in Canada, it is likely the English would be a minority of the House of Commons with a one man, one vote rule. Now initially it would be no where near this, and it would be gerrymander to increase the representation of England proper. And this shows the one of the main issue the English had with Federalism, which was the loss of control of the House of Commons. One can't say the exact year, but by the 1800-1870 time frame, England no longer controls her organs of government. And this brings up the second issue. England was ok with an Irish parliament at one time, what derailed it was the issue of setting of an English parliament. Accepting that England was just the most important province was more than the English could bear. Rome had Spanish emperors, 3 Albanian emperors, and many other leaders not from Italy proper. The empire last 500 years (1500 if we count the ERE), and the British Empire lasted well under half this time frame, largely because it could not find a way to transition from an English to a British Empire. Can you imagine Ghandi as PM or King? Smuts from South Africa? George Washington as commander of all royal military forces?

After having back down and used Federalism to avoid one revolution, I expect it would have been used anytime there was a serious threat of rebellion in white controlled colonies, so over time, the UK would become the United Kingdom of the British Isles, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Or more realistically, whatever lands are settle by English speakers in this ATL.

Now once the English head down the path to Federalism, it can have speed bumps. Ireland being a catholic country could delay its parliament by a decade or two. South Africa could be delayed by the issues of blacks. New Zealand by the great distance, but IMO, once the 13 colonies are given representation, either all white lands will eventually get representation or the 13 colonies will lose their representation within a few decades.
 
Although the 1798 rebellion might not happen, if Catholic emancipation does not take place something is going to kick off before long, it would also depend on what happens in France. A federlist empire would never ever ever ever work, Americans would not stand because once they have more people then England they will want more power and England would not let that happen.
 
Two totally different things at play, with out emancipation there wouls not be any long term peace. However Grattons parliament was by no manner of means in the hands of the cathlolic church.

That's because Grattan's Parliament was before Catholic emancipation. Westminster is left with three choices:

(1) An autonomous local parliament with no Catholic emancipation and increasing paramilitary unrest
(2) A Catholic dominated autonomous parliament, something intolerable to the British policial elite
(3) Full political union with Britain

To me (3) seems the most likely, even if they go through (1) first.
 
Probably, the reforms would take a much slower pace than the OTL one from pre-Grattan's parliament to Grattan's Parliament, owing to anti-Catholicism in Britain and among the Protestant Ascendancy.

Why would there be more anti-Catholicism in Britain in this timeline?
 
This also has the big trouble that, effectively, the Irish were the British' blacks, with a similar racism involved, though I think we're probably talking just about a delay, like for black voting in the US.


So, maybe if it's delayed a century?
 
This also has the big trouble that, effectively, the Irish were the British' blacks, with a similar racism involved, though I think we're probably talking just about a delay, like for black voting in the US.

So, maybe if it's delayed a century?

That's a bit overstatement. The USA thought of blacks as between humans and animals at this time, while parliament voted for Catholic emancipation in 1800. The problem isn't giving them the votes, its giving them the majority of political control in a country right next door. That's why I thought Catholic emancipation and Union might happen at the same time, as a compromise where Catholics get the vote but can't dominate anything.
 
Top