Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington. / Bibliography: l. 259-271.

Thesis (PH. D.)--Columbia University, 1929. / Vita. Published also without thesis note. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Bibliography: p. 235-242.

No description available.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Leipzig. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 87-89).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Leipzig. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 87-89).

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis examines speeches made by Irish members of the British House of Commons concerning the Government of Ireland Bill (1912). The most significant source use was the Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, 1912 to 1914. The organization of the Irish political parties is outlined in Chapter One. The next two chapters deal with their view of Irish history during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The fourth chapter focuses upon the bill in committee, and the fifth chapter examines the more general debate on the bill. The conclusions of the final chapter suggest that advocates of the bill were motivated by Irish nationalism, while opponents were motivated by economic ties to Great Britain.

The topic of this thesis is the Irish issue in the light of the Brexit debates. British people decided to leave the European Union in referendum in June 2016. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was activated 29th of March 2017. Two years long negotiating period started from that date. The withdrawal agreement proposal which was approved by all 27 members of the European Union was rejected three times by British parliament. Brexit was postponed until the end of October of 2019. Future relationship on the island of Ireland with Irish backstop became the main barrier of Brexit negotiations. Both sides of negotiations agree on no possibility of hard border between Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Both of them want to follow The Good Friday Agreement of 1998. On the other hand none of them is willing to step aside from their earlier requirements. Theresa May, British prime minister, decided to leave the EU Custom Union and the European Single Market resolutely. The EU rejected to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement proposal that includes the Irish backstop. The Irish backstop guarantee maintaining an open border on the island of Ireland in the event that the UK leaves the EU without securing an all-encompassing deal. Great Britain is afraid to lost control over its territory. Based on the...

The purpose of this dissertation was to compare British policy towards Ireland/Northern Ireland and United States and Canadian Indian policies. Despite apparent differences, it was hypothesized that closer examination would reveal significant similarities. A conceptual framework was provided by the utilization of Hartzian fragment theory and the theory of internal colonialism. Eighteen research questions and a series of questions concerned with the applicability of the theoretical constructs were tested using largely historical data and statistical indices of social and economic development. The research demonstrated that Gaelic-Irish and North American Indian societies came under pressure from, and were ultimately subjugated by colonizing fragments marked by their high level of ideological cohesiveness. In the Irish case the decisive moment was the Ulster fragmentation of the seventeenth century which set in juxtaposition a defiant, uncompromising, zealously Protestant, "Planter" community and an equally defiant, recalcitrant, native Gaelic-Catholic population. In the United States traditional Indian society was confronted by a largely British-derived, single-fragment regime which was characterized by a profound sense of mission and an Indian policy rooted in its liberal ideology. In Canada the clash between two competing settler fragments led to the victory of the British over the French, and the pursuit of Indian policies based on many of the same premises that underlay United States policies. The indigenous populations in each of the cases under consideration suffered enormous loss of land, physical and cultural destruction, racial discrimination, economic exploitation and were stripped of their political independence. They responded through collective violence, by the formation of cultural revitalization movements, and by intense domestic and international lobbying. They continue to exist today as internal colonies of the developed fragment states within which they are subsumed.