Talk:Republic of Ireland Act 1948

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Dates[edit]

What is the actual date that the Republic of Ireland Act was signed? Wikipedia states two dates, April 1, 1949 and April 18, 1949. Which one is correct? —This unsigned comment was added by 24.242.184.226 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 2004 March 9 (UTC).

I would like to ask the same question. -- PFHLai 17:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Section 4 (Commencement.) of the act states:
This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Government may by order appoint.
Thus inaccordance with the act the commencement order states that the date is April 18th, 1949. I do not know what the significance of April 1st is.
Djegan 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance[edit]

The Statement The Irish Civil War had been fought in 1922–23 on the issue of whether independence without immediately becoming a Republic was acceptable is totaly incorrect, the Irish Civil War was fought over the issue of the oath of Allegience to the British Crown and nothing else.--Padraig3uk 14:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't that simple, Padraig. The Oath of Allegiance was a symbol used to epitomise divergent views on the Republic versus the Free State. It was also a phoney symbol. As the wording of the Oath showed it there was no "Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown". The Oath was actually "to the Irish Free State". The only mention of the King was a minor declaration of fidelity and even that was not by virtue of the British Crown but the King's role in the Treaty settlement. Republican leaders themselves admitted it was a sham argument. The real issue was not the oath. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There was no such Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. That is complete fiction. Read Anglo-Irish Treaty. --Red King (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Statement "Though technically only a description, the term Republic of Ireland is now treated in most instances as the Irish state's official name. However, for some governmental, legal, and diplomatic purposes the official name "Ireland" is sometimes used." is incorrect. The term "Ireland" is used colloquially as the name of the state in the English language.{unsigned}

It is 100% correct. Ireland is used as a diplomatic name. That is what is being dicussed in the paragraph. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 00:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What it's saying is that "Republic of Ireland" is used colloquially as a name, "Ireland", only used for official purposes, this is patently incorrect. Dermo345

Explain how it is "patently incorrect". Djegan 18:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles[edit]

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)

Éire merge[edit]

I've added a block that was previously in Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland. It clearly bvelongs here rather than there; but other problems of citations and style have been imported. I've done a bit of tidying, but there's plenty more to do. jnestorius(talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm proposing that Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and Ireland Act 1949 be merged. Both articles deal with the same topic, just one deals with the reaction of the events described in the other. It's annoying for a reader to have to flip from one article to the other to get the full picture. Maybe an alternative title would have to be used for a combined article. --sony-youthpléigh 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree as they are two different Acts from two different countries. JAJ (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The article Act of Union 1800 deals with two different acts from two different countries also:
Likewise, the article Act of Union 1707 also deals with two different acts from two different countries
However, for the purposes of an encyclopedia it would be entirely unhelpful for a reader to divide discussion of these topics across two different articles just because "they are two different Acts from two different countries". Articles on Wikipedia are based on subjects. Guidance for merging is that if "[t]here are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap" then they should be merged, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe." Just as the Act of Union 1800 and Act of Union 1707 deal with "two different acts from two different countries", they deal with the same subject and thus form single article, and the same applies here. In the case here, the subject is the declaration of Ireland as a republic in 1949 and the UK's response to it. --sony-youthpléigh 19:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But in this case you have Acts from two different Parliaments in two different countries, and issued at different times, the British Act was only to bring its legisation in line with the position decided by Dáil Éireann.--Padraig (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"But in this case you have Acts from two different Parliaments in two different countries, and issued at different times ..." - the Union with Scotland Act 1706 issued by the Kingdom of England in 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 issued by a different country, the Kingdom of Scotland, the following year? Or the Union with Ireland Act 1800 issued by the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 issued by the Kingdom of Ireland six months later?
"... the British Act was only to bring its legisation in line with the position decided by Dáil Éireann." - this is the essence of the reason for merging the two articles: they deal with the same subject - Dáil Éireann declaring Ireland a republic and the Parliament of the United Kingdom reacting to that. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other as the two articles demonstrate in their current form. Just make one article of it and the whole thing will be easier to read and more informative for the reader. This really is not big deal, what's surprising really is that they developed independently at all. No more than a common sense clean up. --sony-youthpléigh 19:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If any merger was to take place then the British article would have to be merged into the one on the Irish Legisation, as the british legisation would be minor to the decision of Dáil Éireann in this case.--Padraig (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the proposal that is on the table (i.e. "It has been suggested that Ireland Act 1949 be merged into this article or section.") I'd also be open for an alternative title if there is a common name for the "event" - though in my experience the "event" is always called the Republic of Ireland Act, including the response to it. --sony-youthpléigh 20:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with any change of the name of the article, but would accept the merger of the relevent details of the other article into this as long as it didn't swamp this article and the other article is made a redirect to here. An editor is currently heavly editing this article, I haven't had a chance to check his changes yet have you.--Padraig (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong disagree. It is natural that Irish history books describe the UK Act in the course of the Republic of Ireland act; that merely reflects Point of View, in a sense which is not to be condemned in the context of Irish history, but would be WP:POV in the context of Wikipedia.
The overlap is not excessive. There is more to be said in the UK article. For example, Irish citizens remained liable for national service in the UK; that's irrelevant to this Irish article. WP:SUMMARY and {{main}} will suffice. There is of course work to be done in tidying this article -- I've just done a little more now.
In the two pairs of Acts of Unions referred to above, there was a coordinated move within both polities such that the resulting Acts would be compatible. In the case of these two Acts, that is obviously not the case: the Irish Act was passed without reference to the UK; the UK Act was passed as a response. For a counter-analogy, we have separate articles Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Danish European Communities membership referendum, 1972, European Communities Act 1972, and United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 dealing with (different aspects of) essentially the same political event: do you advocate merging them into History of the European Communities (1958-1972)#First enlargement? jnestorius(talk) 21:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case we have to articles. One deals with Ireland declaring itself a republic and the other deals with the UK reaction to Ireland declaring itself a republic. These two events are so intimately tied that it is impossible to discuss the second without discussing the first. Of the examples you give concerning Ireland, the UK and Denmark joining the EEC, it is entirely possible to discuss each without mentioning the others, as those articles currently do. They are each independent events. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and the Ireland Act 1949 are intimately connected events. One is responsible for the other, and you cannot in seriousness separate the two? --sony-youthpléigh 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We also have British nationality law and the Republic of Ireland; should we merge Ireland Act 1949 with that? "Overlap" in the guideline means a two-way overlap, not a one-way overlap; while Ireland Act 1949 is in a sense a subsidiary topic to Republic of Ireland Act 1948, that's true of zillions of Wikipedia articles. The solution is not merge, but rather WP:SUMMARY which is what is there at #United Kingdom response. Are you seriously saying you have to flip back and forth between the two articles? Each reads fairly clearly to me; of course both need improvement, especially the bloated "Earlier events" section here. But if someone is focussed on UK law/history, and only incidentally interested in Ireland, the existing separate article is more user-friendly than coming to a subsection of a much longer article. jnestorius(talk) 05:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
At a certain level every article on Wikipedia could be merged until we end up with just one called "The Extent of Human Knowledge" or something. That's not the point. Here we have two articles. Part 1 and Part 2 of the same subject. Part 2 makes no sense without Part 1; and Part 1 without Part 2 is only half the story. The two are inextricable. It's a simple matter. Merge them. --sony-youthpléigh 12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be merged.--Padraig (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is simply not true that "Part 2 makes no sense without Part 1"; the 1949 Act's article can be read without reading any of the 1948 Act's article; it only needs one or two sentences to summarize the parts of the 1948 Act which impelled the 1949 Act. Nor is it true that "Part 1 without Part 2 is only half the story" it's more like 90%, and the existing summary is sufficient for the remaining 10%.
It is grossly inaccurate to view the UK act as "Part II" of the Irish Act. It was not that Westminster simply said "we take note of the 1948 Act"; it is a more multifaceted piece of legislation. The 1949 Act has 7 sections of which only §1.1 and §1.3 are directly related to the 1948 Act. §2 ( Republic of Ireland not a foreign country ) was far from being an inevitable consequence. §1.3 and §3 (Northern Ireland) were manifestly not inevitable, as the consequent dismay and controversy in Ireland WRT to these sections shows; which issues ought to be elaborated in the 1949 Act's article rather than the 1948 Act's. The 1949 Act is a significant milestone in British nationality law, part of the legal structure developed to cope with the postwar end of the Empire. It is not a mere footnote to something that had happened in another country. jnestorius(talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sony-youth -- good luck to your single article ""The Extent of Human Knowledge" or something" -- I am sure it will be an impressive project in 20 years or so. Djegan (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree no need for merger here. Two very distinct acts, from two distinct legal and political systems. Djegan (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

DJ, eventually it will all converge on just one article: 42. (If you're a Hitchhiker's fan.)
Jnestorious, as the 1949 article currently says: "The Ireland Act 1949 is a British Act of Parliament which was intended to deal with the consequences of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 as passed by the Irish parliament." This is the common understanding of it history, the two are never dealt with separately as they cannot be separated. The two are topically one and the same, and certainly not "part of the legal structure developed to cope with the postwar end of the Empire". Cause and effect - just because the effect with regard to Northern Ireland was unexpected doesn't make it any less of an effect. If you don't mind, I'll post to Wikipedia:Third opinion on this? --sony-youthpléigh 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
By all means. BTW Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything alerady has an article. jnestorius(talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Added at Wikipedia:Third opinion. (Good to see a start has been made on the The Extent of Human Knowledge or something article. Would you object to a merge of Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything and 42 to really get the ball rolling?). --sony-youthpléigh 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I too Strongly disagree with the proposed merger. I fully agree with jnestorius's comments on 14 January 2008 and cannot add anything over and above those. I would also mention that the ROI Act article is in really poor shape and rambles.Redking7 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW It was removed from 3O as there were more than 2 opinions already. You can try WP:RFM if you really think it's worth it, but that seems a bit melodramatic to me.
  • As regards "the two are never dealt with separately as they cannot be separated", a quick Google-books reveals British Government and the Constitution: Text and Materials By Colin Turpin, Adam Tomkins, pg 229, which not only mentions the 1949 act and not the 1948 act, it erroneously claims Ireland became a republic in 1937. Plenty of books about the Troubles refer to the 1949 Act in relation to proroguing Stormont, with no need to mention the 1948 Act.
  • As regards the pre-eminence of the 1948 Act, "State of the Union: Unionism and the Alternatives in the United Kingdom" Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan attaches no importance to it other than as a spur for the 1949 act.
While there is overlap between the two articles, this is a sign of their imperfection rather than a spur to merge them altogether. The Ireland Act 1949#Background section gives too much detail about the 1948 Act, and not enough about the British reaction between the 1948 act leading up to the 1949 act. The Ireland Act 1949#Provisions section has little more text than the Republic of Ireland Act 1948#United Kingdom response, but the former can and should be expanded, while the latter should not (insofar as it relates to the 1949 Act; George VI's message of goodwill belongs in the 1948 article and not the 1949 article. jnestorius(talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Jnestorious, your missing one major point, without the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act there never would have been a Ireland Act 1949, the British government was only responding to what was the reality in Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Jnestorious, you truly are missing the point. The Turpin book you mention above, and all other's that deal with the constitution of Northern Ireland, do not need to explicitly refer to the Republic of Ireland Act because the topic that they are discussing is not the Ireland Act, but the constitution of Northern Ireland. They don't need to explain the hows or whys of the Ireland Act, just that it says this or that. For the purpose of this encyclopedia, we need to explain the hows and whys. That intimately necessitates discussion of the Republic of Ireland Act, as any discussion of the Ireland Act alone does. The McLean book you mention is a good example. He wants to discuss the Ireland Act, but cannot without first discussing the Republic of Ireland Act:
"By 1948, Éire had a less subtle leader than De Valera, and the UK a less poetic one than Churchill. The Inter-Party Government elected in 1948 declared Ireland a republic in the Republic of Ireland Act. This was merely to clarify what had all along been implied by the External Relations Act and the 1937 Constitution. But it provoked the British Labour Government of Clement Attlee to the closest approach to primordial Unionism of any UK Government since 1921 - and the only UK policy towards (Northern) Ireland that was discussed ahead of time with the Government of Northern Ireland. Drafts of what became the Ireland Act 1949 were shared with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland before it was laid before the UK Parliament and tthe other government remained in close contact throughout its Parliamentary passage. The Second World Ware surely influenced this warmth." - McLean, I, et al., 2005, State of the Union: Unionism and the Alternatives in the United Kingdom, Oxford University Press: Oxford, p.149
Likewise, from a completely different view point, Hachey emphasises how one is the immediate consequence of the other:
"London's response to the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act was initially hostile. Realizing that it was no longer possible to perpetuate the fiction that Éire had not left the Commonwealth in 1937, the British suggested to Dublin that there would be serious implications involving nationality questions and trade preferences if Ireland were to become a foreign country in relation to the Commonwealth. The Dominions, however, already worried about the negative impact that punitive measures of any kind might have on their own constituents of Irish descent, demanded that London find some way of protecting the Irish from the consequences of their own action. Even members of Prime Minister Attlee's own Labour party who represented urban constituencies with large a Irish vote spoke open of the need for Britain to do something. Londond's response was decidedly innovative. Under the terms of teh Ireland Act of 1949, the Westminster Parliament accorded the Republic of Ireland a "nonforeign" status that insulated the Iris in the two areas where they were most vulnerable - citizenship and trade." - Hachey, T.E., et al., 1996, The Irish Experience: A Concise History, M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, N.Y, p.217
The above is the usual way of dealing with the topic of discussing either act i.e. they are discussed together, inseparably, as cause and effect.
Your suggestion that the current state of the articles are imperfect reveals the artificiality of your position. You say that the discussion of the Ireland Act in the Republic of Ireland Act article is too long, so long in fact that it is as long as the meat of the Ireland Act article (that is once you get beyond explaining the Republic of Ireland Act in that article, which you would like to remove also!). You say that this section of the Republic of Ireland Act article should be frozen so as to not become longer or more detailed than the Ireland Act article. This is not to the benefit of our readers. The only purpose that this can serve it to artificially maintain a seperate Ireland Act article. If such a time comes that that section of the Republic of Ireland Act article becomes long enough to merit spinning off as a separate article then so be it. Guidance exists for this already. It's clear from your description that that point has not come. Until it does, a separate article on the Ireland Act is an artificial duplication of material that is better dealt with in one article along with discussion of the Republic of Ireland Act. Having two article, Part 1 and Part 2 does not serve the interests of our readers. That should be our priority. --sony-youthpléigh 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you honestly believe readers reading Ireland Act 1949 as it currently reads will be unable to make sense of it without clicking through to Republic of Ireland Act 1948? If that is your point, then I am not missing it, I just don't believe it.
  • If by "inseparably" you mean you have to mention one when discussing the other, then yes of course, that's already the case. The two passages you quote provide one sentence each about the 1948 Act. That is sufficient context for those books; likewise, a summary-section is enough in our 1949-Act article.
  • WP:SIZE discusses the upper limit above which an article must be split. It says almost nothing about the lower limit below which it must not be split. (Apart from "If an article or list has remained [< 1 KB] for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page.") Nobody's opposition to the merger is on the basis that the merged article will be too long; merely that it combines two distinct topics.
  • Where before you were claiming the two topics are "inseparable", you are now admitting that they may be split, but not until they become bigger. How much bigger? Are you claiming the two topics are so tightly intertwined that we should hold out until they blow the 60KB limit of WP:SIZE? Or can you imagine splitting out the 1949 Act at some earlier point?
  • I am not saying the Republic of Ireland Act article's Ireland Act section should be "frozen so as to not become longer or more detailed" than the Ireland Act article; I am saying that the section already provides an adequate summary and that additional material (such as the background about Unionism and other Dominions you have cited) should be added to the main article and not the summary section.
  • Have you any proposal for a new title for your proposed combined article? How do you propose to merge the categories and series boxes?
jnestorius(talk) 10:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created a draft of a "unified" article here. See if you think if it any better. Current articles could redirect to points "within" that article. (There's a proper name for this but I can't remember it. What I mean are redirect with this effect: Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and Ireland Act 1949. --sony-youthpléigh 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. I honestly don't find that convincing; it's pretty untidy and muddled. In fairness, a lot of the problem is the ragged nature of the current text of the 1948 article. Maybe we should try tidying the current articles up first and then reconsider whether a merge is worthwhile. Trying to fix several problems at once is a recipe for trouble. jnestorius(talk) 12:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As things stand their is no consensus here for a merger. Djegan (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, but while I accept that I still see it as an uninformed, artificial, unhelpful, non-sensical and sectarian way to treat a fairly matter-of-fact subject matter. And I'm sorry, Jnestorius, but there is no justification for putting a freeze (however you want to phrase it) on the development of any section of any article just to maintain a pretense for the existence of another. --sony-youthpléigh 13:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't advocate a freeze, but I do note the qualification "if appropriate" in this from Wikipedia:SUMMARY#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised:
To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the main article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary article.
I have no problem leaving the merge tags in place for the moment. Hopefully we can improve the content in the meantime regardless. jnestorius(talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Jnestorius, which article do you regard as the main article, because I regard this one as being so.--Padraig (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sync them?? Merge them. ("... two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." "... a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.") The section isn't long enough to merit a main article, Wikipedia:SUMMARY doesn't apply. When that time comes, I'll be happy to sync the summary with a main article.
Indeed, to re-iterate the problem suggested by Padraig, the issue is that both articles are "main" articles for each other. That's not how things are supposed to be, but is a consequence of the artificial "Part 1" and "Part 2" set-up that is being insisted on. --sony-youthpléigh 14:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe this article is the main article in this case as this deals with an event that brought about the second, so the second article can only be a sub-article of this.--Padraig (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think no merger. As for User:Sony-youth ’s sandbox “merged article”, I agree with User:Jnestorius again: it is muddled. The second para: “sudden and unexpected declaration” [Hardly: The Act was itself passed over three months after it was first announced in Ottawa; Dev had said publicly that Ireland was a republic years beforehand; and Ireland had stopped participating in the Commonwealth in the 1930s]... “caused outrage among politicians United Kingdom” [Really?]... "The UK's response was the Ireland Act 1949" [What about: the King’s message of goodwill and the UK’s warnings re the implications of leaving the Commonwealth, all before the 1949 Act itself]... “without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland” [No: the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland was required]. Overall, its a pity more time and effort isn’t put into the (deficient) Articles themselves rather than discussions like this (though I guess thats hypocritical!) Redking7 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Redking, it was a quick cut and paste from the current articles with a "top-of-the-head" rewrite of the lead. Don't read it too literally, the idea was to get an idea for what the two articles looked like together, nothing more. As for much of your criticisms, they two are contradicted by the sources quoted above e.g.
  • “caused outrage among politicians United Kingdom" - Hachey: "Lodon's response ... was initially hostile"; McLean: "... provoked ... the closest approach to primordial Unionism of any UK Government"
  • "The UK's response was the Ireland Act 1949" - Hachey: "London's response was decidedly innovative. ... the Ireland Act of 1949 ..." McLean: "... it provoked ... the only UK policy towards (Northern) Ireland that was discussed ahead of time with the Government of Northern Ireland. ... the Ireland Act 1949"
Another doesn't take much searching to find a quote e.g.
  • “without the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland” - see the second paragraph on page 229 here. The Ireland Act contained assurances that a poll would be necessary. This differed from the Government of Ireland Act where the UK parliament held "the supreme authority" on matters relating to Northern Ireland (and could in theory just tell the Northern Ireland parliament that it was to join with the Republic, though that was unlikely). Now for a poll of the people of Northern Ireland would be the "supreme authority" regarding Northern Ireland's position within the UK.
Finally, your last criticism is simply a matter of poor phrasing:
  • “sudden and unexpected declaration” - Your response was that "Hardly: The Act was itself passed over three months after it was first announced in Ottawa; ..." The sentence was intended to refers to the declaration in Ottawa, not the passing of the act (it reads: "The sudden and unexpected declaration of the republic ..."), though I can see where the problem in that phrasing would be. Regarding your other criticisms of the sentence ("Dev had said publicly that Ireland was a republic years beforehand; and Ireland had stopped participating in the Commonwealth in the 1930s"), fair enough, but still no-one, not even Dev, expected the declaration of the Republic in 1948. --sony-youthpléigh 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Sony-youth: "Don't read it too literally" [This is an encyclopedia]; "outrage and shock" [hostile and even primordial Unionist (even if true) are not "outrage and shock". Not balanced.]; "consent of a majority" [Again no. Here's a link to the Act as enacted:Ireland Act as originally enacted]. Read Section 1. Redking7 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Red, it was in my user space, which is not a part of the encyclopedia. Get a grip and don't read it too literally. The intention was only to give an idea of what a merged article would look like as part of this discussion. RE: Parliament of Northern Ireland and not a plebiscite, correct you are. --sony-youthpléigh 14:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup - should the "Background" and "Introduction" sections remain as is?[edit]

I've decided to WP:Be bold and do a wholesale copyedit and cleanup, making a more logical presentation of the facts. Comments welcome.

The "Background" and "Introduction" sections should not have been up front - the general reader is not remotely interested in them. I have strong doubts as to whether they should stay at all. They reek of WP:original research, wp:weasel wordimg and are seriously undercited. They undermine the status of the rest of the article. My inclination is to move them here to the Talk page where maybe a future editor will clean them up. Comments particularly welcome. --Red King (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The sections should definitely stay, though probably as a single section. The events surrounding the introduction of the bill are essential to understanding how Ireland became a republic in name again, without a revolution and with the assent of the British government. You are right about the OR and weasel words - the whole thing is written in a style that is fairly typical of Ireland-related articles a few years ago: "Eamon de Valera had replied, "we are a republic",[5] having refused to say so before for eight years." I would be inclined just to go through the sections and strip off anything that isn't plain fact. What's left would be very short indeed, and would probably need some expanding e.g. a mention of the Free State constitution and the 1937 one. That's my tuppence-ha'penny worth. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. For example, I'd lose all the conjecture about Cosgrave's alleged fit of pique and say something like It is not clear what led to the Bill being drafted. The cabinet papers do not explain and the memoirs of the two Cabinet Ministers to have writen about it contradict each other. As the alleged indecision of the preceding Fianna Fáil years, again the hard evidence is very limited and again it reads as so much conjecture. --Red King (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Good work on the lead, by the way. It reads far better now. Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Greatbritain"?[edit]

The "The King" subsection includes the following text:

By doing so the Act abolished the last remaining functions of the King of Greatbritain, Ireland and the Domionions beyond the Seas, George VI, in relation to Ireland.

Why is "Greatbritain" spelt as one word? Was it referred to as such officially at that time? Loganberry (Talk) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing word[edit]

It reads King George, in turn, as "" accredited all Irish diplomats. so a word has been omitted. 2NG (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim that de Valera objected to leaving the Commonwealth and considered rejoining a few years later.[edit]

That is so unlike Dev that not only does the statement need a 'citation needed' tag but - imo - it needs a dubious too. Astonishing claims need astonishing evidence. --Red King (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref here. And another. What do you find so astonishing about the position? RashersTierney (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting (if I can dig out the references) that the post-London Declaration Commonwealth and role of the monarch is remarkably similar to DeV's proposals in the lead-up to the Anglo-Irish Treaty: that the King be declared the President (or some similar non-royal title) of an close association between the UK, Ireland, and whatever other nations wished to join. --Jfruh (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nicholas Mansergh wrote extensively on the Ireland Commonwealth relationship, including de Valera's positions at different times. Plenty there to mull over, if inclined. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction of the bill[edit]

The "Introduction of the bill" section is the result of this edit to the Éire article by Jtdirl in July 2003. It has been tagged since 2008, and no attempt has been made since then to source it. I propose to replace the whole thing with something on the lines of "Costello announced the bill in Ottawa, and it was introduced in the Dáil on such-a-date." Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The later comment about minute taking and whether Liam Cosgrave was up to it, is like debating if the moon is made of dusty cheese. Such a major decision would of course have been minuted! This - Given that Cosgrave had never kept minutes before, his minutes, at least early on in the government, proved to be only a limited record of government decisions. So whether the issue was never raised, was raised but undecided on, was subjected to a decision taken informally, or was subjected to a decision taken formally, remains obscure on the basis of the 1948 cabinet documentation.[14]. Noel Browne's view was obviously accurate.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting 1937 letter[edit]

Browsing Documents on Irish Foreign Policy, I found this 21 May 1937 letter from Handwritten letter from Joseph Walshe to John W. Dulanty (Free State High Commissioner in London):

True he [the king] does not occupy the same formal position as in the other States of the Commonwealth, but that does not detract one iota from the essential fact that he is King of Ireland and is definitely declared so to be by Act 58 of 1936 (12th December). The law can be changed at any time if the people desire it. But the position in South Africa is juridically precisely the same. Our President, however, has special powers of holding up Bills and should the Dáil suddenly take the revolutionary step of repealing 58 of 36 the Senate and the President would undoubtedly make sure that the issue would go to the people by way of referendum. The very fact that the King's position is specifically secured by an Act of Parliament makes it infinitely more secure than if it were secured by some external agency.

Did anyone propose an ordinary referendum in 1948? jnestorius(talk) 18:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)