![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 6, 2004, December 6, 2005, December 6, 2006, December 6, 2007, and December 6, 2008. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unfortunately you are wrong, Mav, but it is an easy mistake to make. The constitutional twists and turns of 1921-22 are complicated and sometimes hard to follow.
Basically, the Anglo-Irish Treaty received two ratifications, by Dáil Éireann in December 1921, validating it in the eyes of the Irish Republic, and in January 1922 by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, validating it according to British constitutional theory which regarded the HofC of SI as the legitimate parliament of 'Southern Ireland' created under the British Government of Ireland Act,1920. It is this latter ratification that you are mixing up with the beginning of the third state, the Irish Free State. Before the new state could come into being, a new constitution needed to be drafted and passed by both Dáil Éireann (validating it in Irish constitutional theory) and by the British Parliament, validating it in British constitutional theory.
In the interregnum between the ratifications of Dec/Jan and the coming into force of the new state in December 1922, two governments existed governing nominally rival states. When de Valera resigned as President of the Republic. he was replaced by Arthur Griffith, who used a different title President of Dáil Éireann. Michael Collins was his Minister for Finance. Simultaneously Collins was made head of a Provisional Government nominally answerable to the HofC of SI. The Provisional Govt. then dissolved the HofC of SI and held elections for a new parliament ( I have a copy of that dissolution in front of me on my desk because I was writing about it only last night), which in republican theory became the Third Dáil (also a Constituent Assembly), in British theory was a new House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and which history to limit confusion also calls the Provisional Parliament. Both Griffith's and Collins' jobs merged in August 1922 when both men died, under W.T. Cosgrave.
The Irish Free State only formally came into being, superceding the Irish Republic and Southern Ireland (and their respective parliaments!) through
It is possible some history books or web pages somewhere have the wrong date; as you can see, it is extremely complicated and easily mixed up, but the correct answer is shown in, among other places, copies of the parliamentary debates of the period, where the Irish Free State is recorded as beginning in December 1922, not January 1922, which is when Collins formed the Provisional Government pending the creation of the IFS. Collins was usually described as President of the Provisional Government, while W.T. Cosgrave is generally described as the first IFS premier, with the formal title President of the Executive Council. Who said history is easy!!! (And I have to make my living researching this stuff!!!) :-) JTD 19:11 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
I've just come across the details of how the Provisional Government was to be constituted, as laid down in the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Section 17 stated:
Article 77 of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution stated:
As my old latin my put it, QED. :-) JTD 20:20 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
Is it not putting it a bit strongly to say the Irish Republic was in de facto existence? Afterall, its write certainly did not run in all the island? I understand the point that is being made and certainly "South Ireland" was nowhere to be seen (though was the provisional government really the provisional government of that body as opposed to the provisional government of SE?). And, in any case "Southern Ireland" was not a state, but an integral part of the UK?
A.
Shouldn't the currency be changed to euro?
I don't know anything about Ireland except what I have read in this encyclopedia, but I feel the authors use of italics and puctuation in sentences like "Recent calculations of Sinn Féin support in 1918, based on actual electoral battles at national and local level puts party support at in the region of 45–48%, less than a majority!" or "Had its original author, Michael Collins, survived, he might have been able to clarify its actual meaning..." and his or her parenthetical aside in the sentance "Furthermore, as one of the negotiators, Michael Collins, later admitted (and he was in a position to know, given his role in the independence war), the IRA at the time of the Truce was weeks..." introduces too much of an editorial nature into the article. While all these things might very well be true, the style seems slanted to me. - 133.6.156.69
Anonymous user. No one seems to actually disagree with you so instead of putting a NPOV warning at the start of the article please go and fix the wording yourself if you feel it should be more neutral. The motto on Wikipedia is Be bold! Also, please put your messages at the bottom of this talkpage instead of the top. Most users will look straight at the bottom so they might miss your messages. Iota 20:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is this section 'a stub to be expanded'? Why is it even a section? Did something dramatic or of some importance happen there? What am I missing? -- ClemMcGann 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
In the infobox would anyone have any issues if I replaced the image of Coat of Arms of the Republic of Ireland with that of the image of the Great Seal of the Irish Free State. The coat of arms (particularily the harp) as it is currently presented in the infobox is more of a post 1937 Constitution of Ireland creation and is out of place and is not of a design existing at the time. Any opinions or discussions or dissent? Djegan 11:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Lapsed Pacifist 19:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
100% approve. Great idea. Little did King
George V think when he handed over the Great Seal of the Irish Free State to
Patrick McGilligan, the Minister for External Affairs, at the Palace in I think 1931, that it would be gracing the pages of Wikipedia. It is absolutely the right image for the IFS infobox, as it was the formal seal of the IFS and didn't continue in use after 1937.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 19:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering if there should not be at least an outline of the historical events that took place during this fifteen-year period, such as the ongoing murders and bank robberys by Sinn Fein/IRA (and early Fianna Fail); the Blueshirts; the Papal Congress; Ardnacrusha; the near-extermination of the IRA/Sinn Fein by De Valera; the Treaty Ports; the Econmic War with the UK; so on and so forth. Or would this be better written under the section "History of the Irish Free State"? Fergananim 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The Tricolour of the Irish Republic (and later Republic of Ireland) was not the flag of the Irish Free State, which was a Green Flag with the Union Flag in Canton with a Harp emblazoned, then the old Green Flag with an uncrowned harp as Eire before finally adopting the Tricolour as the official flag in 1948.
67th Tigers 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If the Parliament of Northern Ireland had not made such a declaration, under Article 14 of the Treaty Northern Ireland, its Parliament and government would have continued in being but the Oireachtas would have had jurisdiction to legislate for Northern Ireland in matters not delegated to Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act. This, of course, never came to pass.
The implication of this section seems to be that if Northern Ireland hadn't chosen to opt out, the Stormont Parliament would have remained in operation as a devolved entity within a 32 county Irish Free State. Was this just an accidental consequence of the Treaty or a rare deliberate attempt to offer northern Unionists some incentive to be in an all-Ireland state? Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The article says it was always certain that NI would opt out.
NI did not opt out till after the Irish Civil war. How can anyone be certain what would have happened, if the civil war had not occurred?
It seems to me the sentence is conjecture, and the factual accuracy of the article would be improved by deleting it.
Tim2718281 ( talk) 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What it offered was dominion status, as a state of the British Empire (now called the Commonwealth of Nations), equal to Canada, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand.
Surely it's not appropriate to equate the British Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations - the latter an entirely voluntary union of sovereign states, in complete contrast to the Empire. In any case, what relevance does it have to an article on an entity which was defunct long before the Commonwealth was born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousequakes ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
--
"The President of the Republic, Éamon de Valera, realised that a republic was not on offer. He decided not to be a part of the treaty delegation and so be tainted with what some more militant republicans were bound to call a "sellout". Yet his own proposals published in January 1922 fell far short of an autonomous all-Ireland republic."
Please don't assume this comment to be coming from a dyed-in-the-wool FF/DeV supporter but is it honest to leave this passage intact and considered to be an unbiased account of DeV's actions? I realise that there is general sentiment DeV was saving face by not volunteering himself for the negotiations but without any reference or footnote to back this up, it seems a little bit of a liberty to take for an unbiased piece. Gavreilly ( talk) 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on the lasting achievements of the Irish Free State, including for instance:
etc. PeterClarke 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype· ✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added this template as most sections of the article, other than "Northern Ireland opts out", have few or no references. Most of the material is factual and well documented, so this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. -- Pertusaria ( talk) 08:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
Wasn't this just a different constitutional arrangement? The various republics of France (for instance) are referred to as "governments" rather than "states"--even the monarchies and empires are considered to be in continuity with the modern state of France--so why is the change from the Irish Free State to a republic described as the creation of a new state? 67.187.92.105 ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a note in the infobox describing the ambiguity of Ireland's head of state in between 1937 and 1949? While it's true the Irish Free State ceased to exist when the infobox says it did, the succeeding state being the Republic of Ireland might not be a total reflection of fact. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is OK on the constitutional issues but doesn't say anything on the economy and demographics as seen in 1922 - 37. The IFS was set up to stop emigration but failed; most of the poor remained poor or became poorer. Images like
could be added. 86.43.186.42 ( talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.
There is a discussion taking place at TALK:Commonwealth realm, where Ireland is listed as a "Former Commonwealth Realm." This strikes me as odd, because it is not a term ever associated with the Irish Free State at the time, nor with the Republic of Ireland now. Neither article in Wikipedia contains that word. The discussion could perhaps benefit from Irish eyes. -- Pete ( talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well; that's mainly because the term 'realm' or 'commonwealth realm' has come to replace the term 'Dominion'.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 11:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 shows the oath to be taken ;
"The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:- I ……. do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."
My emphisis. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Every source I have states that the British Commonwealth of Nations was created by the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Therefore, regardless of what wording was used while the Anglo-Irish War and Irish Civil War were still raging, the Free State could hardly be part of something which did not exist for another decade. ( 92.11.207.181 ( talk) 16:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC))
Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Free State was a Dominion of the British Empire when it was created in 1922. Although the Oath of Allegiance described the state as a "Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations", this did not actually exist until the 1931 Statute of Westminster, nine years later. ( 92.11.207.181 ( talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC))
The British Commonwealth of Nations did not exist until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Whether the Free State adopted the Statute is irrelevant. Many IRA terrorists rejected the Anglo-Irish Treaty because they knew it made southern Ireland a Dominion of the British Empire. That is why careful wording was used in the negotiations. ( ArnoldBronckorst ( talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC))
|
One editor has added a new map from 1933, omitting the area that left the IFS, another has also removed the 1922 and replaced it with it, niether have given any rational why a 1933 map should be used over a 1922 one which shows the IFS and NI highlighted and what is the relevance of 1933 in this article. The 1922 map is accurate and relevant to the article the 1933 is being used by one of the editors just because they created it. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Major claims such as this need equally major citations as evidence to support it. As of now, this one has none, so I have tagged it as 'dubious' until someone provides it. If someone wants to do the work, this is as far as I've got/am prepared to spend the time:
-- Red King ( talk) 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Free State was still legally a Dominion after the creation of the Commonwealth in 1931 until it ceased to exist in 1937. ( ColmMcCrory ( talk) 19:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
|
Closing discussion inititated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 19:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Irish Republic was created by its proclamation on 24th April 1916. ( ColmMcCrory ( talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC))
|
The 1937 constitution stated that the "national territory [of the Irish state] consists of the whole island of Ireland". Did the Irish Free State formally claim Northern Ireland prior to this? Rob984 ( talk) 18:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Which of the two commanders should be named here, or both, and what is the source?
Qexigator ( talk) 16:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet: So, back to Maxwell? If so, any source? Qexigator ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
My question, open for comment, is: Do we need to name either, or both as in Orsini's version above, or may it be left as now [2] ? Qexigator ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Re "leave it as it is now": it's not well written now. "The decision...generated sympathy" is not sensible. The public was not aware when the decision was taken, only when the first shootings took place. I'm not saying that it needs shortening, but if you want a longer and more "dramatic" account, say something like "...and particularly the execution of fifteen people by firing squad, the imprisonment or interment of hundreds more, and the imposition of martial law caused a profound shift in public opinion towards the republican cause in Ireland." Anything that's both readable and informative. Scolaire ( talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
done. Qexigator ( talk) 10:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 19:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Republic of Ireland was only created in 1949, as the 1937 constitution did not say whether Eire was a republic. ( DrymanDavies ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC))
|
The predecessor state in the infobox has been Southern Ireland (1921–22), but the lead says, "On the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the entire island of Ireland". Therefore the predecessor state was the United Kingdom (including the whole of Ireland). I am changing it accordingly. Scolaire ( talk) 10:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a section in this article entitled Northern Ireland "opts out". Note that the headline of the section has the act of opting out in double quotation marks.
As the opting out was a technicality (and this seems to be supported in the article by virtue of the use of inverted commas in the headline), I elected to add that fact to the section.
The sentence, after my edit, read: "For about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland technically became part of the newly created Irish Free State."
There are no 'weasel words' in use here: the issue was a formality, or technicality. By all accounts, Northern Ireland never had any intention to remain or become a part of the Free State. Indeed, the notification was quite quick by the standards of the day. Had the events taken place in the last couple of decades, I have no doubt that a formal digital communique would have been sent instantaneously, thus rendering the statement as follows: "For about two minutes on the 6th of December 2012 Northern Ireland became part of the newly created Irish Free State."
While it is significant on a purely factual basis in the recounting of the history, the short amount of time that had passed is telling with regard to the fact that it was indeed a mere technicality.
This fact was little-known until the last decade or so, and certainly was never significant enough to have been mentioned in many history textbooks in schools and universities, or discussed in any detail.
That this was a technicality and a formality is not in question. Arguably it is actually 'weasel words' to suggest that Northern Ireland belonged to the Free State in any real sense, given that the Free State government was not given power transference immediately and so therefore did not actually have any jurisdiction over Northern Ireland during those two days. Effectively there was no change.
I'm honestly not quite sure why there is an objection, nor the suggestion that my edit comprised 'weasel words'.
If there are no further objections, I will be WP:BOLD and reinsert the word 'technically'. -- 98.122.20.56 ( talk) 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the Northern Ireland "opts out" section which says that "for about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland technically became part of the newly created Irish Free State." This is cited with "Times, 6 December 1921 [recte 1922], Ulster in the Free State, Voting-Out Today, Memorial to the King". There is a serious problem with this citation, however. I have got access to The Times Digital Archive, and that headline is nowhere to be seen in the issue of 6 December 1922. In fact, there are two separate news stories, one on the new Free State and the other on "Ulster", and neither one even hints that there is any connection between the two, never mind that one has become part of the other. How this situation arose I cannot guess, but as things stand the sentence is unverifiable, and I am removing it (and the corresponding sentence in the lead) accordingly. I am copying this to Talk:History of Northern Ireland and Talk:Partition of Ireland, which both have similar sentences with the same citation. Scolaire ( talk) 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I did a much-needed rewrite of the lead on 14 January, to bring it into conformity with WP:LEAD. This has now been reverted by AlwynJPie with the edit summary "Simplified lead" and the addition of the text – which AlwynJPie knows is wrong – that "on the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the entire island of Ireland". This is disruption pure and simple. I am reverting accordingly. Scolaire ( talk) 10:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It says that the preceding state is the UK, but shouldn't it be the Irish Republic? That's the state that turned into the Irish Free State in 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregie156 ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
For some reason people are removing "independent" in the lede. This lacks a sense of history. The IFS was independent in all but name. Obviously the treaty and dominion status was one thing in theory but in practice it was as fully independent as the other dominions. Zymurgy ( talk) 13:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Zymurgy I am honestly really confused why you would say such a thing. It is a matter of historical fact that the Irish free state did not even have legistlative independence until 1931 when the Statute of Westminster was passsed. It would appear that it is you not I who "lacks a sense of history". lets also not forget that the british controlled the Treaty Ports and Spike Island until 1938. 112.217.228.212 ( talk) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely correct that the IFS did not have complete legislative independence. But neither does Ireland today - legislation is circumscribed by various multilateral/ bilateral treaties and international (CoE, UN) and above all supranational (EU, EURATOM) constraints. The 1921 treaty was a constraint on legislation but today so is the Belfast agreement and many other treaties. Oireachtas can't legislate for anything contrary to EU law and so on and so on. "Independence" is a matter of degree - in substance the 1922 state was for all practical purposes not significantly less independent than the 1937 one. Independence is not an absolute, black or white. Head of state and governor general were not major blots on independence as they never refused to sign a bill during the IFS - so if they had been scrapped it would have made little difference. True however that FF post-1932 put huge emphasis on reclaiming sovereignty hence the need for a new constitution but much of that is in the realm of the symbolic and the political rather than practical independence. Acknowledging the independence in practice of the IFS does not mean that 1931, 1932-37 and 1937 developments were not improvements. Or indeed that 1972 onwards has put a major constraint on absolute legislative independence ... Zymurgy ( talk) 17:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Zymurgy considering you have pretty much just admitted that the free state was not completely independent would you be ok with refering to the free state as "quasi independent" in the lead of the aricle or something to that effect? 112.217.228.212 ( talk) 18:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User: Scolaire has reverted text in the section concerning the above. The effect of his change is to take out the discussion by the Home Secretary of Northern Ireland’s position. The Home Secretary explained the significance of the opt out procedure to Parliament in 1949 where he explained that all of Ireland was in the Irish Free State on 6 December with Northern Ireland leaving it the next day. Why have you done this? The text no longer explains to the readers what happened. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there User:Scolaire
“As I explained in the edit, the Secretary of State (not the Home Secretary)”. Thanks for correcting that. [Subsequent edit: Actually, I was correct to begin with - it was the Home Secretary - User:Scolaire...] Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) He “was explaining an anomaly that was thrown up by the legislation, and which affected the Ireland Bill then going through Parliament.” “Anomaly” POV but irrelevant here as this is not about citizenship. I knew that’s what he was doing. His remarks are what’s important. They concern the status of NI on 6 December.
“He was not making law (only Parliament or the courts can do that), or making a declaration on the policy of the Lloyd George government or the constitutional effect of the 1922 legislation.” Of course he wasn’t making law. Or talking about Lloyd George! He was giving the view of Her Majesty’s Government, of which he was a principal officer, on what happened to Northern Ireland at the time that the Irish Free State was crated. It’s appropriate and relevant that his interpretation of the position be spelled out. He was the Secretary of State!
“The section begins, as it should, with an analysis by a secondary source of the actual, real-world, practical effect of the 1922 legislation.” What does the Austen Morgan quote mean? Can you explain it to me? Is he saying Northern Ireland was not within the Irish Free State and didn’t need to opt out of it? No issue with starting with a secondary source...but one saying what...how is it explained? No part of the article talks about powers.
“No Free State troops poured across the border on 6 December to occupy barracks in the north; no Free State civil servants arrived at Stormont Buildings to take over the administration in the name of a 32-county state.” That’s right. So far, no human being has ever landed on Planet Jupiter either. But like the troops, Jupiter landing isn’t mentioned in the article either.
“Your edit would relegate that reality to the end of the section, below an out-of-context quote from a primary source which has never been interpreted by any secondary source to mean that the incorporation of Northern Ireland in the Free State was a legal, enforceable reality. It is, quite simply, a distortion of the truth.”
Again, by trying to jump to a conclusion before explaining anything for the reader, you are using a quotation that is unclear. What on earth is being said?
What was out of context concerning the SoS’s quotation? He was giving HM Government’s interpretation of events in December 1922.
We’ve interacted before and I dont’ expect we can interact positively. I hope you’re keeping well and enjoying Wikipedia. Historically, I used to sometimes come across real intellects on WP. But that got increasingly rare over the years.
I corrected your mistake about when the ‘Ulster month’ ran from. I hope you understand my point about that. It’s quite an important one and was left out of the earlire text. Any way, happy to explore any questions with you. Best regards. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 14:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The provisions [of the Treaty] in respect of Northern Ireland maintained the terms of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act for a month after the official establishment of the Irish Free State (this occurred when the Irish Free State Constitution Act received Royal assent on 6 December 1922), during which time Northern Ireland could opt out of the new settlement. (Gibbons, Ivan. The British Labour Party and the Establishment of the Irish Free State, 1918-1924. p. 107.)
Hi User:Scolaire - I had a busy week so pardon my delay in picking this up again. Let’s keep at it. Maybe we can get a consensus. I know our past interactions have never been fruitful. But I’m proud of you. You’ve found a forum here on Wiki where I know you wish to take your role seriously. I would like you to pay attention to the questions I repeat here. I’ll word them differently to try and focus you on the questions:
1. In 1949, the Secretary of State, discussed Irish nationality law in the House of Commons. A quote from his remarks is set out in the article. Why was he talking about Irish nationality law? Why was he referring to the topic you and I are discussing? What was it in Irish nationality law he was explaining?
2. “Until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland...”. What powers are being held in suspense here? Why does the law refer to powers here if there are none? If Northern Ireland is clearly outside, why is it being referred to here? Remember, this is a provision given the force of law in the United Kingdom.
3. “If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland...” Why does the law say “no longer” here? If it is perfectly clear that NI was outside IFS, should it not say that they powers...shall not be “extended” to Northern Ireland?
4. Why did the Home Secretary, one of the 4 holders of the Great Offices of State in the United Kingdom, report to the House of Commons on the question of whether NI was in the IFS on 6 December 1922 and unambiguously report that it was?
5. Do you think the Home Secretary making a speech on citizenship legislation took no prior legal advice before making the speech he did? Do you think he wasn’t briefed perhaps? Of course a speech in parliament isn’t definitive of anything alone, no more than the writings of one particular lowly lawyer. But I feel you need to engage with this if you’re trying to achieve an informed consensus.
6. Why did the PM of NI in his address to his House of Commons talk of NI “votin out” or “remaining in” the Irish Free State? The quote is in the article. What do you think that suggests as to his view of the question we are discussing?
Very happy for you to ‘copy and paste’ my questions and put your answers under them. I feel you pare taking a far too simple - black and white - view on this. Here I won’t again ask you to parse Mr. Morgans’ words. I suspect they may be as unclear to you as they are to me so I stick to the above questions. We can move back to Mr. Morgan’s words again later, if you would like. Thanks Scolaire!! Frenchmalawi ( talk) 01:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The Treaty...implied that Northern Ireland would be a part of the Free State on its creation: This refers to section 12, which says, "If...an address is presented to His Majesty...the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland." To quote Morgan, "this seems to suggest an Irish Free State right [to Northern Ireland]". To answer your Q3, "shall no longer extend" implies that until that time they "shall extend", but nowhere in the Treaty document does it explicitly state that the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall extend to Northern Ireland. Bear in mind that the ambiguity in the Treaty document was deliberate, because British, Irish and Ulster unionist all had to keep face. Thus, to answer your Q6, the Northern Ireland Prime Minister could (and was quite possibly intended to) interpret it as meaning that Northern Ireland would become part of the Free State unless and until it presented its address. Thus, it implied, not stated.
...and the legislation introduced to give it legal effect: This refers to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, which contained the Treaty as a schedule, so any section numbers quoted are the same for both.
...but legally the terms of the Treaty applied only to the 26 counties: This refers to section 11, which says, "Until the expiration of one month...the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, remain of full force and effect." To quote Morgan:
During the Ulster month, 'the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State [were] not [to] be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland. This implied politically – but not legally – that the Irish Free State had some right to Northern Ireland. But partition was acknowledged expressly in the treaty.
...and the government of the Free State never had any powers—even in principle—in Northern Ireland.
The pretence of one Ireland was carried through to article 14...This may be seen as a transfer of (most but not all) powers from London to Dublin, but, given that the GOIA 1920 was to continue apparently in Northern Ireland, it is difficult to see how it could be united (albeit federally) with a dominion outside the United Kingdom. Article 14 makes it difficult to argue for the creation of a new state.
Again, this seems to suggest an Irish Free State right, but the reference to the GOIA 1920 continuing is decisive of the issue.
All of that certainly shows considerable thought on your part", "
I’m proud of your efforts around that", "
Well done", "
you have whatever you have and I certainly feel there is a lot of pride bubbling about", "
you’ve pointed out that you are a barnstar trooper no less", and "
Good man!" are all utterly inappropriate things to say in response to a request to stop. It is not "adult to adult", it is "parent to child" and it is needlessly (and I suspect deliberately) provocative.
Hi User:Scolaire - I put aside personal bickering - you have not answered question 1. I listed it first for a reason. You might think you have answered question 1. Again, I know your reputation and Barn stars so I take you at your word that you think you have answered it. But you haven’t. You haven’t even touched on it. Please could you have another go? I know you can do it! Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
have another go. I know you can do it!" I know what I can do – if there's any more of this carry-on I can go to the Administrators' noticeboard and find out if you will "get suspended quicker than one could say a Hail Mary."
User:Scolaire reverted my correction on the above. Why? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a well sourced explanation and discussion in the article about the fact that Irish law asserts that on 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland was de jure within the Irish Free State. The map showing the territory used to explain this with NI in light green & an explanation. Why was this deleted? Why has User:Scolaire deleted my explanation around this in the info box? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact, the whole Northern Ireland "opts out" section is massive undue weight: 700 words to say that the NI parliament did what it was always going to do. The article is about the Free State, not the minutiae of two days of Northern Ireland politics. We don't need the full wording of the address, or the Times report of the king receiving the Earl of Cromer, or the Hansard report of Mr. Craig's report of the king's response. I am taking the section out and replacing it with the simple facts of the Free State coming into being and the NI parliament voting to opt out. The question of whether NI was part of the IFS for a day or two days is an interesting foootnote, so I am leaving it as just that – a footnote. Scolaire ( talk) 11:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 6, 2004, December 6, 2005, December 6, 2006, December 6, 2007, and December 6, 2008. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unfortunately you are wrong, Mav, but it is an easy mistake to make. The constitutional twists and turns of 1921-22 are complicated and sometimes hard to follow.
Basically, the Anglo-Irish Treaty received two ratifications, by Dáil Éireann in December 1921, validating it in the eyes of the Irish Republic, and in January 1922 by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, validating it according to British constitutional theory which regarded the HofC of SI as the legitimate parliament of 'Southern Ireland' created under the British Government of Ireland Act,1920. It is this latter ratification that you are mixing up with the beginning of the third state, the Irish Free State. Before the new state could come into being, a new constitution needed to be drafted and passed by both Dáil Éireann (validating it in Irish constitutional theory) and by the British Parliament, validating it in British constitutional theory.
In the interregnum between the ratifications of Dec/Jan and the coming into force of the new state in December 1922, two governments existed governing nominally rival states. When de Valera resigned as President of the Republic. he was replaced by Arthur Griffith, who used a different title President of Dáil Éireann. Michael Collins was his Minister for Finance. Simultaneously Collins was made head of a Provisional Government nominally answerable to the HofC of SI. The Provisional Govt. then dissolved the HofC of SI and held elections for a new parliament ( I have a copy of that dissolution in front of me on my desk because I was writing about it only last night), which in republican theory became the Third Dáil (also a Constituent Assembly), in British theory was a new House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and which history to limit confusion also calls the Provisional Parliament. Both Griffith's and Collins' jobs merged in August 1922 when both men died, under W.T. Cosgrave.
The Irish Free State only formally came into being, superceding the Irish Republic and Southern Ireland (and their respective parliaments!) through
It is possible some history books or web pages somewhere have the wrong date; as you can see, it is extremely complicated and easily mixed up, but the correct answer is shown in, among other places, copies of the parliamentary debates of the period, where the Irish Free State is recorded as beginning in December 1922, not January 1922, which is when Collins formed the Provisional Government pending the creation of the IFS. Collins was usually described as President of the Provisional Government, while W.T. Cosgrave is generally described as the first IFS premier, with the formal title President of the Executive Council. Who said history is easy!!! (And I have to make my living researching this stuff!!!) :-) JTD 19:11 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
I've just come across the details of how the Provisional Government was to be constituted, as laid down in the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Section 17 stated:
Article 77 of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution stated:
As my old latin my put it, QED. :-) JTD 20:20 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)
Is it not putting it a bit strongly to say the Irish Republic was in de facto existence? Afterall, its write certainly did not run in all the island? I understand the point that is being made and certainly "South Ireland" was nowhere to be seen (though was the provisional government really the provisional government of that body as opposed to the provisional government of SE?). And, in any case "Southern Ireland" was not a state, but an integral part of the UK?
A.
Shouldn't the currency be changed to euro?
I don't know anything about Ireland except what I have read in this encyclopedia, but I feel the authors use of italics and puctuation in sentences like "Recent calculations of Sinn Féin support in 1918, based on actual electoral battles at national and local level puts party support at in the region of 45–48%, less than a majority!" or "Had its original author, Michael Collins, survived, he might have been able to clarify its actual meaning..." and his or her parenthetical aside in the sentance "Furthermore, as one of the negotiators, Michael Collins, later admitted (and he was in a position to know, given his role in the independence war), the IRA at the time of the Truce was weeks..." introduces too much of an editorial nature into the article. While all these things might very well be true, the style seems slanted to me. - 133.6.156.69
Anonymous user. No one seems to actually disagree with you so instead of putting a NPOV warning at the start of the article please go and fix the wording yourself if you feel it should be more neutral. The motto on Wikipedia is Be bold! Also, please put your messages at the bottom of this talkpage instead of the top. Most users will look straight at the bottom so they might miss your messages. Iota 20:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is this section 'a stub to be expanded'? Why is it even a section? Did something dramatic or of some importance happen there? What am I missing? -- ClemMcGann 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
In the infobox would anyone have any issues if I replaced the image of Coat of Arms of the Republic of Ireland with that of the image of the Great Seal of the Irish Free State. The coat of arms (particularily the harp) as it is currently presented in the infobox is more of a post 1937 Constitution of Ireland creation and is out of place and is not of a design existing at the time. Any opinions or discussions or dissent? Djegan 11:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Lapsed Pacifist 19:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
100% approve. Great idea. Little did King
George V think when he handed over the Great Seal of the Irish Free State to
Patrick McGilligan, the Minister for External Affairs, at the Palace in I think 1931, that it would be gracing the pages of Wikipedia. It is absolutely the right image for the IFS infobox, as it was the formal seal of the IFS and didn't continue in use after 1937.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint) 19:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering if there should not be at least an outline of the historical events that took place during this fifteen-year period, such as the ongoing murders and bank robberys by Sinn Fein/IRA (and early Fianna Fail); the Blueshirts; the Papal Congress; Ardnacrusha; the near-extermination of the IRA/Sinn Fein by De Valera; the Treaty Ports; the Econmic War with the UK; so on and so forth. Or would this be better written under the section "History of the Irish Free State"? Fergananim 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The Tricolour of the Irish Republic (and later Republic of Ireland) was not the flag of the Irish Free State, which was a Green Flag with the Union Flag in Canton with a Harp emblazoned, then the old Green Flag with an uncrowned harp as Eire before finally adopting the Tricolour as the official flag in 1948.
67th Tigers 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If the Parliament of Northern Ireland had not made such a declaration, under Article 14 of the Treaty Northern Ireland, its Parliament and government would have continued in being but the Oireachtas would have had jurisdiction to legislate for Northern Ireland in matters not delegated to Northern Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act. This, of course, never came to pass.
The implication of this section seems to be that if Northern Ireland hadn't chosen to opt out, the Stormont Parliament would have remained in operation as a devolved entity within a 32 county Irish Free State. Was this just an accidental consequence of the Treaty or a rare deliberate attempt to offer northern Unionists some incentive to be in an all-Ireland state? Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The article says it was always certain that NI would opt out.
NI did not opt out till after the Irish Civil war. How can anyone be certain what would have happened, if the civil war had not occurred?
It seems to me the sentence is conjecture, and the factual accuracy of the article would be improved by deleting it.
Tim2718281 ( talk) 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What it offered was dominion status, as a state of the British Empire (now called the Commonwealth of Nations), equal to Canada, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand.
Surely it's not appropriate to equate the British Empire with the Commonwealth of Nations - the latter an entirely voluntary union of sovereign states, in complete contrast to the Empire. In any case, what relevance does it have to an article on an entity which was defunct long before the Commonwealth was born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousequakes ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
--
"The President of the Republic, Éamon de Valera, realised that a republic was not on offer. He decided not to be a part of the treaty delegation and so be tainted with what some more militant republicans were bound to call a "sellout". Yet his own proposals published in January 1922 fell far short of an autonomous all-Ireland republic."
Please don't assume this comment to be coming from a dyed-in-the-wool FF/DeV supporter but is it honest to leave this passage intact and considered to be an unbiased account of DeV's actions? I realise that there is general sentiment DeV was saving face by not volunteering himself for the negotiations but without any reference or footnote to back this up, it seems a little bit of a liberty to take for an unbiased piece. Gavreilly ( talk) 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a section on the lasting achievements of the Irish Free State, including for instance:
etc. PeterClarke 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype· ✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added this template as most sections of the article, other than "Northern Ireland opts out", have few or no references. Most of the material is factual and well documented, so this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. -- Pertusaria ( talk) 08:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
Wasn't this just a different constitutional arrangement? The various republics of France (for instance) are referred to as "governments" rather than "states"--even the monarchies and empires are considered to be in continuity with the modern state of France--so why is the change from the Irish Free State to a republic described as the creation of a new state? 67.187.92.105 ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a note in the infobox describing the ambiguity of Ireland's head of state in between 1937 and 1949? While it's true the Irish Free State ceased to exist when the infobox says it did, the succeeding state being the Republic of Ireland might not be a total reflection of fact. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is OK on the constitutional issues but doesn't say anything on the economy and demographics as seen in 1922 - 37. The IFS was set up to stop emigration but failed; most of the poor remained poor or became poorer. Images like
could be added. 86.43.186.42 ( talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.
There is a discussion taking place at TALK:Commonwealth realm, where Ireland is listed as a "Former Commonwealth Realm." This strikes me as odd, because it is not a term ever associated with the Irish Free State at the time, nor with the Republic of Ireland now. Neither article in Wikipedia contains that word. The discussion could perhaps benefit from Irish eyes. -- Pete ( talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well; that's mainly because the term 'realm' or 'commonwealth realm' has come to replace the term 'Dominion'.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 11:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 shows the oath to be taken ;
"The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:- I ……. do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."
My emphisis. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Every source I have states that the British Commonwealth of Nations was created by the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Therefore, regardless of what wording was used while the Anglo-Irish War and Irish Civil War were still raging, the Free State could hardly be part of something which did not exist for another decade. ( 92.11.207.181 ( talk) 16:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC))
Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 16:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Free State was a Dominion of the British Empire when it was created in 1922. Although the Oath of Allegiance described the state as a "Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations", this did not actually exist until the 1931 Statute of Westminster, nine years later. ( 92.11.207.181 ( talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC))
The British Commonwealth of Nations did not exist until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Whether the Free State adopted the Statute is irrelevant. Many IRA terrorists rejected the Anglo-Irish Treaty because they knew it made southern Ireland a Dominion of the British Empire. That is why careful wording was used in the negotiations. ( ArnoldBronckorst ( talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC))
|
One editor has added a new map from 1933, omitting the area that left the IFS, another has also removed the 1922 and replaced it with it, niether have given any rational why a 1933 map should be used over a 1922 one which shows the IFS and NI highlighted and what is the relevance of 1933 in this article. The 1922 map is accurate and relevant to the article the 1933 is being used by one of the editors just because they created it. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Major claims such as this need equally major citations as evidence to support it. As of now, this one has none, so I have tagged it as 'dubious' until someone provides it. If someone wants to do the work, this is as far as I've got/am prepared to spend the time:
-- Red King ( talk) 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Free State was still legally a Dominion after the creation of the Commonwealth in 1931 until it ceased to exist in 1937. ( ColmMcCrory ( talk) 19:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
|
Closing discussion inititated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 19:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Irish Republic was created by its proclamation on 24th April 1916. ( ColmMcCrory ( talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC))
|
The 1937 constitution stated that the "national territory [of the Irish state] consists of the whole island of Ireland". Did the Irish Free State formally claim Northern Ireland prior to this? Rob984 ( talk) 18:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Which of the two commanders should be named here, or both, and what is the source?
Qexigator ( talk) 16:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet: So, back to Maxwell? If so, any source? Qexigator ( talk) 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
My question, open for comment, is: Do we need to name either, or both as in Orsini's version above, or may it be left as now [2] ? Qexigator ( talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Re "leave it as it is now": it's not well written now. "The decision...generated sympathy" is not sensible. The public was not aware when the decision was taken, only when the first shootings took place. I'm not saying that it needs shortening, but if you want a longer and more "dramatic" account, say something like "...and particularly the execution of fifteen people by firing squad, the imprisonment or interment of hundreds more, and the imposition of martial law caused a profound shift in public opinion towards the republican cause in Ireland." Anything that's both readable and informative. Scolaire ( talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
done. Qexigator ( talk) 10:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet ( talk) 19:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Republic of Ireland was only created in 1949, as the 1937 constitution did not say whether Eire was a republic. ( DrymanDavies ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC))
|
The predecessor state in the infobox has been Southern Ireland (1921–22), but the lead says, "On the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the entire island of Ireland". Therefore the predecessor state was the United Kingdom (including the whole of Ireland). I am changing it accordingly. Scolaire ( talk) 10:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a section in this article entitled Northern Ireland "opts out". Note that the headline of the section has the act of opting out in double quotation marks.
As the opting out was a technicality (and this seems to be supported in the article by virtue of the use of inverted commas in the headline), I elected to add that fact to the section.
The sentence, after my edit, read: "For about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland technically became part of the newly created Irish Free State."
There are no 'weasel words' in use here: the issue was a formality, or technicality. By all accounts, Northern Ireland never had any intention to remain or become a part of the Free State. Indeed, the notification was quite quick by the standards of the day. Had the events taken place in the last couple of decades, I have no doubt that a formal digital communique would have been sent instantaneously, thus rendering the statement as follows: "For about two minutes on the 6th of December 2012 Northern Ireland became part of the newly created Irish Free State."
While it is significant on a purely factual basis in the recounting of the history, the short amount of time that had passed is telling with regard to the fact that it was indeed a mere technicality.
This fact was little-known until the last decade or so, and certainly was never significant enough to have been mentioned in many history textbooks in schools and universities, or discussed in any detail.
That this was a technicality and a formality is not in question. Arguably it is actually 'weasel words' to suggest that Northern Ireland belonged to the Free State in any real sense, given that the Free State government was not given power transference immediately and so therefore did not actually have any jurisdiction over Northern Ireland during those two days. Effectively there was no change.
I'm honestly not quite sure why there is an objection, nor the suggestion that my edit comprised 'weasel words'.
If there are no further objections, I will be WP:BOLD and reinsert the word 'technically'. -- 98.122.20.56 ( talk) 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the Northern Ireland "opts out" section which says that "for about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland technically became part of the newly created Irish Free State." This is cited with "Times, 6 December 1921 [recte 1922], Ulster in the Free State, Voting-Out Today, Memorial to the King". There is a serious problem with this citation, however. I have got access to The Times Digital Archive, and that headline is nowhere to be seen in the issue of 6 December 1922. In fact, there are two separate news stories, one on the new Free State and the other on "Ulster", and neither one even hints that there is any connection between the two, never mind that one has become part of the other. How this situation arose I cannot guess, but as things stand the sentence is unverifiable, and I am removing it (and the corresponding sentence in the lead) accordingly. I am copying this to Talk:History of Northern Ireland and Talk:Partition of Ireland, which both have similar sentences with the same citation. Scolaire ( talk) 10:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I did a much-needed rewrite of the lead on 14 January, to bring it into conformity with WP:LEAD. This has now been reverted by AlwynJPie with the edit summary "Simplified lead" and the addition of the text – which AlwynJPie knows is wrong – that "on the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the entire island of Ireland". This is disruption pure and simple. I am reverting accordingly. Scolaire ( talk) 10:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It says that the preceding state is the UK, but shouldn't it be the Irish Republic? That's the state that turned into the Irish Free State in 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregie156 ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
For some reason people are removing "independent" in the lede. This lacks a sense of history. The IFS was independent in all but name. Obviously the treaty and dominion status was one thing in theory but in practice it was as fully independent as the other dominions. Zymurgy ( talk) 13:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Zymurgy I am honestly really confused why you would say such a thing. It is a matter of historical fact that the Irish free state did not even have legistlative independence until 1931 when the Statute of Westminster was passsed. It would appear that it is you not I who "lacks a sense of history". lets also not forget that the british controlled the Treaty Ports and Spike Island until 1938. 112.217.228.212 ( talk) 14:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely correct that the IFS did not have complete legislative independence. But neither does Ireland today - legislation is circumscribed by various multilateral/ bilateral treaties and international (CoE, UN) and above all supranational (EU, EURATOM) constraints. The 1921 treaty was a constraint on legislation but today so is the Belfast agreement and many other treaties. Oireachtas can't legislate for anything contrary to EU law and so on and so on. "Independence" is a matter of degree - in substance the 1922 state was for all practical purposes not significantly less independent than the 1937 one. Independence is not an absolute, black or white. Head of state and governor general were not major blots on independence as they never refused to sign a bill during the IFS - so if they had been scrapped it would have made little difference. True however that FF post-1932 put huge emphasis on reclaiming sovereignty hence the need for a new constitution but much of that is in the realm of the symbolic and the political rather than practical independence. Acknowledging the independence in practice of the IFS does not mean that 1931, 1932-37 and 1937 developments were not improvements. Or indeed that 1972 onwards has put a major constraint on absolute legislative independence ... Zymurgy ( talk) 17:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Zymurgy considering you have pretty much just admitted that the free state was not completely independent would you be ok with refering to the free state as "quasi independent" in the lead of the aricle or something to that effect? 112.217.228.212 ( talk) 18:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User: Scolaire has reverted text in the section concerning the above. The effect of his change is to take out the discussion by the Home Secretary of Northern Ireland’s position. The Home Secretary explained the significance of the opt out procedure to Parliament in 1949 where he explained that all of Ireland was in the Irish Free State on 6 December with Northern Ireland leaving it the next day. Why have you done this? The text no longer explains to the readers what happened. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi there User:Scolaire
“As I explained in the edit, the Secretary of State (not the Home Secretary)”. Thanks for correcting that. [Subsequent edit: Actually, I was correct to begin with - it was the Home Secretary - User:Scolaire...] Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) He “was explaining an anomaly that was thrown up by the legislation, and which affected the Ireland Bill then going through Parliament.” “Anomaly” POV but irrelevant here as this is not about citizenship. I knew that’s what he was doing. His remarks are what’s important. They concern the status of NI on 6 December.
“He was not making law (only Parliament or the courts can do that), or making a declaration on the policy of the Lloyd George government or the constitutional effect of the 1922 legislation.” Of course he wasn’t making law. Or talking about Lloyd George! He was giving the view of Her Majesty’s Government, of which he was a principal officer, on what happened to Northern Ireland at the time that the Irish Free State was crated. It’s appropriate and relevant that his interpretation of the position be spelled out. He was the Secretary of State!
“The section begins, as it should, with an analysis by a secondary source of the actual, real-world, practical effect of the 1922 legislation.” What does the Austen Morgan quote mean? Can you explain it to me? Is he saying Northern Ireland was not within the Irish Free State and didn’t need to opt out of it? No issue with starting with a secondary source...but one saying what...how is it explained? No part of the article talks about powers.
“No Free State troops poured across the border on 6 December to occupy barracks in the north; no Free State civil servants arrived at Stormont Buildings to take over the administration in the name of a 32-county state.” That’s right. So far, no human being has ever landed on Planet Jupiter either. But like the troops, Jupiter landing isn’t mentioned in the article either.
“Your edit would relegate that reality to the end of the section, below an out-of-context quote from a primary source which has never been interpreted by any secondary source to mean that the incorporation of Northern Ireland in the Free State was a legal, enforceable reality. It is, quite simply, a distortion of the truth.”
Again, by trying to jump to a conclusion before explaining anything for the reader, you are using a quotation that is unclear. What on earth is being said?
What was out of context concerning the SoS’s quotation? He was giving HM Government’s interpretation of events in December 1922.
We’ve interacted before and I dont’ expect we can interact positively. I hope you’re keeping well and enjoying Wikipedia. Historically, I used to sometimes come across real intellects on WP. But that got increasingly rare over the years.
I corrected your mistake about when the ‘Ulster month’ ran from. I hope you understand my point about that. It’s quite an important one and was left out of the earlire text. Any way, happy to explore any questions with you. Best regards. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 14:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The provisions [of the Treaty] in respect of Northern Ireland maintained the terms of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act for a month after the official establishment of the Irish Free State (this occurred when the Irish Free State Constitution Act received Royal assent on 6 December 1922), during which time Northern Ireland could opt out of the new settlement. (Gibbons, Ivan. The British Labour Party and the Establishment of the Irish Free State, 1918-1924. p. 107.)
Hi User:Scolaire - I had a busy week so pardon my delay in picking this up again. Let’s keep at it. Maybe we can get a consensus. I know our past interactions have never been fruitful. But I’m proud of you. You’ve found a forum here on Wiki where I know you wish to take your role seriously. I would like you to pay attention to the questions I repeat here. I’ll word them differently to try and focus you on the questions:
1. In 1949, the Secretary of State, discussed Irish nationality law in the House of Commons. A quote from his remarks is set out in the article. Why was he talking about Irish nationality law? Why was he referring to the topic you and I are discussing? What was it in Irish nationality law he was explaining?
2. “Until the expiration of one month from the passing of the Act of Parliament for the ratification of this instrument, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland...”. What powers are being held in suspense here? Why does the law refer to powers here if there are none? If Northern Ireland is clearly outside, why is it being referred to here? Remember, this is a provision given the force of law in the United Kingdom.
3. “If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland...” Why does the law say “no longer” here? If it is perfectly clear that NI was outside IFS, should it not say that they powers...shall not be “extended” to Northern Ireland?
4. Why did the Home Secretary, one of the 4 holders of the Great Offices of State in the United Kingdom, report to the House of Commons on the question of whether NI was in the IFS on 6 December 1922 and unambiguously report that it was?
5. Do you think the Home Secretary making a speech on citizenship legislation took no prior legal advice before making the speech he did? Do you think he wasn’t briefed perhaps? Of course a speech in parliament isn’t definitive of anything alone, no more than the writings of one particular lowly lawyer. But I feel you need to engage with this if you’re trying to achieve an informed consensus.
6. Why did the PM of NI in his address to his House of Commons talk of NI “votin out” or “remaining in” the Irish Free State? The quote is in the article. What do you think that suggests as to his view of the question we are discussing?
Very happy for you to ‘copy and paste’ my questions and put your answers under them. I feel you pare taking a far too simple - black and white - view on this. Here I won’t again ask you to parse Mr. Morgans’ words. I suspect they may be as unclear to you as they are to me so I stick to the above questions. We can move back to Mr. Morgan’s words again later, if you would like. Thanks Scolaire!! Frenchmalawi ( talk) 01:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The Treaty...implied that Northern Ireland would be a part of the Free State on its creation: This refers to section 12, which says, "If...an address is presented to His Majesty...the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland." To quote Morgan, "this seems to suggest an Irish Free State right [to Northern Ireland]". To answer your Q3, "shall no longer extend" implies that until that time they "shall extend", but nowhere in the Treaty document does it explicitly state that the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall extend to Northern Ireland. Bear in mind that the ambiguity in the Treaty document was deliberate, because British, Irish and Ulster unionist all had to keep face. Thus, to answer your Q6, the Northern Ireland Prime Minister could (and was quite possibly intended to) interpret it as meaning that Northern Ireland would become part of the Free State unless and until it presented its address. Thus, it implied, not stated.
...and the legislation introduced to give it legal effect: This refers to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, which contained the Treaty as a schedule, so any section numbers quoted are the same for both.
...but legally the terms of the Treaty applied only to the 26 counties: This refers to section 11, which says, "Until the expiration of one month...the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall not be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, remain of full force and effect." To quote Morgan:
During the Ulster month, 'the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State [were] not [to] be exercisable as respects Northern Ireland. This implied politically – but not legally – that the Irish Free State had some right to Northern Ireland. But partition was acknowledged expressly in the treaty.
...and the government of the Free State never had any powers—even in principle—in Northern Ireland.
The pretence of one Ireland was carried through to article 14...This may be seen as a transfer of (most but not all) powers from London to Dublin, but, given that the GOIA 1920 was to continue apparently in Northern Ireland, it is difficult to see how it could be united (albeit federally) with a dominion outside the United Kingdom. Article 14 makes it difficult to argue for the creation of a new state.
Again, this seems to suggest an Irish Free State right, but the reference to the GOIA 1920 continuing is decisive of the issue.
All of that certainly shows considerable thought on your part", "
I’m proud of your efforts around that", "
Well done", "
you have whatever you have and I certainly feel there is a lot of pride bubbling about", "
you’ve pointed out that you are a barnstar trooper no less", and "
Good man!" are all utterly inappropriate things to say in response to a request to stop. It is not "adult to adult", it is "parent to child" and it is needlessly (and I suspect deliberately) provocative.
Hi User:Scolaire - I put aside personal bickering - you have not answered question 1. I listed it first for a reason. You might think you have answered question 1. Again, I know your reputation and Barn stars so I take you at your word that you think you have answered it. But you haven’t. You haven’t even touched on it. Please could you have another go? I know you can do it! Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
have another go. I know you can do it!" I know what I can do – if there's any more of this carry-on I can go to the Administrators' noticeboard and find out if you will "get suspended quicker than one could say a Hail Mary."
User:Scolaire reverted my correction on the above. Why? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a well sourced explanation and discussion in the article about the fact that Irish law asserts that on 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland was de jure within the Irish Free State. The map showing the territory used to explain this with NI in light green & an explanation. Why was this deleted? Why has User:Scolaire deleted my explanation around this in the info box? Frenchmalawi ( talk) 11:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact, the whole Northern Ireland "opts out" section is massive undue weight: 700 words to say that the NI parliament did what it was always going to do. The article is about the Free State, not the minutiae of two days of Northern Ireland politics. We don't need the full wording of the address, or the Times report of the king receiving the Earl of Cromer, or the Hansard report of Mr. Craig's report of the king's response. I am taking the section out and replacing it with the simple facts of the Free State coming into being and the NI parliament voting to opt out. The question of whether NI was part of the IFS for a day or two days is an interesting foootnote, so I am leaving it as just that – a footnote. Scolaire ( talk) 11:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)