Talk:Irish Free State

Governance

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

• the coming into force of the 1922 Constitution (which was passed by the Dáil while receiving the Royal Assent in the UK)
• the issuing of Letters Patent from the King creating the post of Governor-General of the Irish Free State and appointing Tim Healy to the post.

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:

By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof [December 1922] and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken torthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament eelcted for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the dats hereof.

Article 77 of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution stated:

Every existing officer of the Provisional Government at the date of the coming into force of this Constitution (not being an officer whose servuces had been lent by the British Government to the Provisional Government) shall on that date be transferred to and become an officer of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann), and shall hold office by a tenure corresponding to his previous tenure.

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.

Euro

Shouldn't the currency be changed to euro?

this is an article on a historic country that has not existed since 1937 Djegan 23:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

Irish Free State at the British Empire Games

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)

Quite correct (we did not even win a single medal) - notwithstanding that it is not in the correct section at all.
Djegan 18:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox: Future COA vs. Great Seal

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)

Incidents in the Irish Free State

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)

Poll: Ireland article titles

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)

Wrong Flag

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)

Northern Ireland opts out

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)

Timrollpickering - Re the above. Your reading is largely correct. It was a deliberate attempt (on paper at least) to make joining the IFS seem more palatable to Unionists. I don't think it's entirely fair to say it was a "rare" initiative. The Constitution of the Irish Free State was in several places intentionally drafted to assuage Unionist (both in the North and South) fears: e.g. Senate representation; the constitution's secularism; and PR voting. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it certain that Northern Ireland would opt out?

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)

Tim2718281 - Re the above. NI's parliament resolved to opt out of the IFS the day after the IFS was established (i.e. on 7 December 1922). The civil war had not ended by then. The majority of NI politicians and the NI government had always been consistent in their view they did not wish to be part of any new Irish state so I think the statement is fair and accurate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical Background

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)

Its giving an unreferenced interpretation of Dev's motives. Over simplistic POV. RashersTierney (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just re-read this article and it has far too much to say on the events leading up to the establishment of the IFS and relatively little on the 15 years of its existence. The article needs substantial work. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy and achievements of the Irish Free State

I would like to see a section on the lasting achievements of the Irish Free State, including for instance:

• 2RN in Dublin (later Radio Éireann), 1926
• The Electricity Supply Board, 1927
• The Currency Commission (later the Central Bank), 1927

etc. PeterClarke 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

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)

Refimprove template added

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)

Poll on Ireland article names

Separate state?

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)

Can you please quote the section in question? RashersTierney (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A note?

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)

Exactly, it didn't become the Republic of Ireland until 1949. So they should really change the date in the article from 1937 to 1949 as although the new constitution did remove nearly all things involving The King, he was still there and still recognised as the head of state until the republic was established in 1949. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Realities of life?

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

Population (in millions) from 1841 - 2006

could be added.86.43.186.42 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree fully that the article is overly weighted on the 'constitutional' issue. Per suggestion above, there should be more on the Shannon Scheme and other economic and cultural matters. Not sure that this particular graph is very informative, nor that independence was primarily about emigration (just my POV, of coarse). RashersTierney (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Open Ireland page move discussion

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

• (Discuss)–Republic of Ireland →Ireland (republic) Kauffner (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Realm of the Irish Free State

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)

What preceeded the state?

The lead says 'The Irish Free State effectively replaced both the self-proclaimed Irish Republic (founded 21 January 1919) and the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland' Is there a citation saying it replaced anything else? If not then that's what preceded the state. The UK was not in effective control so it was not the government, if it is to be put in as the government before then it should be from a citation that describes all this properly. Otherwise we should keep what has been there. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Westminster felt it was still in control of all of Ireland until the situation rapidly deteriorated in mid-1921, which is why a truce was offered in July. The Free State was a secession from the UK. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Commonwealth of Nations

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)

That wording was only used here in Ireland to placate the rebels. At Westminster the Free State was described as a Dominion of the Empire. The British Commonwealth of Nations did not formally exist until 1931, nine years after the creation of the Free State. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Can you show a source to state otherwise? If not.... Murry1975 (talk) 16:42, 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))

Try Frank Pakenhams book "Peace by ordeal: an account, from first-hand sources of the negotiation and signature of the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921", it became a statutory legal phrase when used in the Treaty and as an oath. It doesnt matter that. Also the IFS never adopted the Statute of Westminster- so where does that leave them? Murry1975 (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the Free State government adopted the Statute or not, as Westminster decided all of Ireland's foreign policy until the handover of the Treaty ports in 1938. Frank Pakenham was an extreme leftist and might not be the most reliable guide. My biography of Michael Collins says Westminster politicians deliberately avoided using the term "British Empire" in negotiations as they knew the IRA were certain to kill Collins for signing the Treaty. Regardless of the wording however the British Commonwealth did not become a reality until 1931. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Wording

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))

There was a gradual transition from Empire to Commonwealth. The Statute of Westminster 1931 gave all the dominions de jure independence, however many such as the Irish Free State already had de facto independence. To define the Statute of Westminster 1931 as the date of the transition is p.o.v.. The Irish Free State is described in law as part of the Commonwealth, not Empire, so it makes sense to use that term. Rob (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Free State did not have independence in foreign policy until 1938, unlike the other Dominions. Westminster only used the term Empire, except in documents pertaining to within the Free State itself. Just as Churchill deliberately used the term "English-speaking peoples" when dealing with American audiences who did not approve of the British Empire. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Provide reference please. The UK had no influence over the decisions of the Irish Government, I don't see how the Irish Free State, an independent country, could be described being part of another country's empire. Rob (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as the UK retained the Treaty ports they controlled all of our foreign policy. The Free State was not a country and it was not fully independent, as Michael Collins admitted. Ireland played an enormous role in building the Empire, which was called British because it was created by the British Isles. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Edit conflict: Why would controlling 3 ports allow them to control the states foreign policy? Again, provide a source please. I agree it wasn't fully independent, but Britain still had no influence over the decisions of the Irish Government, and you need to provide a source to suggest otherwise. After the creation of the Irish Free State, the Empire was in decline, and the Irish Free State barely participated in Commonwealth matters. As well as being irrelevant, you last point is also incorrect, it was called the "British Empire" because it belonged to "Britain". The common usage of "British Isles" in English only began in the 17th century, most likely because all of the British Isles were ruled by Britain (although the term was used earlier in other languages). Rob (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Had it not been for the handover of the Treaty ports we would have been in World War II. The ports would have been targetted by U-Boats and the Luftwaffe would have bombed Dublin and Cork every night. The only reason the Free State appeared to have control of foreign policy is because the UK was not involved in any wars between 1922 and 1938. The Empire expanded to its largest extent in 1922, the year the Free State was created. Ireland was not ruled by Britain in the 17th century, and Scotland had its own parliament. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

"...only reason...": retrospective conjecture is neither history nor encyclopedic; is debatable for more reasons than one; and has little if anything to do with discussing an improvement to the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If the UK had gone to war in 1922-1938 the Royal Navy would have been using the Treaty ports to refuel and transport arms and ammunition, making all of Ireland an enemy target. (92.11.207.181 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

That supposition has no bearing on the facts about which this article is reporting for the information of readers. What war? What enemy? Where? When? Why? How would other treaty obligations be affected in connection with League of Nations? What other options would have been available and expedient? Qexigator (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

War with Germany and Italy was always likely, and the possibility of war with Japan or the Soviet Union was always there. The League of Nations was not fot for purpose, just like the United Nations today in its handling of the Syrian civil war for example. (92.11.194.204 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

For the purposes of the article, the wording of the Treaty cannot properly be dismissed by POV/OR as "merely to placate the rebels", nor do the documents or practise of the period allow it to be categorically affirmed that the British Commonwealth of Nations formally came into existence in 1931. This was not exclusively a concern of the Irish people or those party to the Treaty or members of the IFS government, but also of India and of those countries which had begun as overseas colonies (when Ireland, which had once been a Dominion, had been made a kingdom of Henry VIII and his successors) and by then, following the events of the Great War and armistice, were considered to be approaching full independence from the Westminster parliament and UK government. The king (G.V and G.VI), and the UK and other governments owing allegiance to the Crown, had good reason to be acutely concerned with questions of international relations, including treaty-making, and hostilities and neutrality, as well as the local politics of the several territories. All this is signified by the successive London Conferences and Declarations. Qexigator (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)