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)

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)

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))

The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2014 (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))

The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2014 (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)

Wording

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)) 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 fit 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)) Thank you for confirming the retrospective conjecture point in that way. Qexigator (talk) 14:39, 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) 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)) The above editor is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Again, completely unsourced POV. The Empire became the Commonwealth over a period of time. There is no legislation defining the transition, hence why both terms were used during this period. In context to the Free State, "Commonwealth" was preferred, so that is how the Free State should be described here. Rob (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The map

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)

User:Murry1975 the same topic is again under discussion below. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

'... was submitted twice to the Vatican ...' - citation needed

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:

• At Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, there is a citation for the Vatican looking at it (before or after is not stated).
• That citation in turn says 'de Valera went out of his way to secure the approval of the Holy See', citing Liberal Democracy, Natural Law, and Jurisprudence: Thomistic Notes on an Irish Debate. V. Bradley Lewis], page 147
• Lewis indeed uses the cited text and list in support a number of sources at footnote 34.

--Red King (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dominion status

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)) No the Free State as shown in the Anglo Irish Treaty was a dominion until...well thats the point, the Statue of 1931 or the act of 1937? Murry1975 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Until it renamed itself Ireland. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)) 1 - Doubtful. 2 - We renamed ourselves Ireland under the 1937 Constitution. 3 - But we arguably abolished the monarchy in December 1936 (or, debatably, with the tidy-up legislation of 1937), both while we were still called the Irish Free State (thus making the matter potentially relevant to improving the current article). 4 - Meanwhile, thanks to the External Relations Act, we continued to act as a sort-of-debatable Dominion until the Republic of Ireland Act of 1949 (and we were sort-of-viewed as such by the UK and the other Dominions). 4b - Basically we made use of George VI as a diplomatic rubber stamp when convenient. We officially viewed him as a King recognized by the other countries of the Commonwealth rather than as Ireland's King, even though he kept Ireland as part of his titles in UK Law until 1950 (when British PM Clement Attlee introduced changes following our Republic of Ireland Act 1949). Note that having Ireland as part of his titles in British Law need not make him King of Ireland for Wikipedia purposes, otherwise Wikipedia would need a lot of new English Kings of France. 5 - There is little doubt that we were a Dominion from 1931 to December 1936, but there seem to be up to 4 possible dates for us ceasing to be a Dominion - 1949, December 1936, early 1937 (whenever the tidy-up legislation got passed), and whenever the External Relations Act came into force in 1936 or 1937 (if that's different from those other two dates), with the three 1936/1937 dates being relevant to this article. 6 - In practice, we tend to be seen internationally as having left the Commonwealth in 1949, and thus being a Dominion until then. 7 - But what we actually were domestically and in abstract political theory is possibly as unanswerable as such religious mysteries as the Trinity and Transubstantiation, perhaps deliberately so since it arguably suited both Dev's interest and the national interest to be able to have it both ways whenever it suited. 8 - But as far as I know we regarded ourselves as associated with the Commonwealth but not members of it (which presumably meant we were not a Dominion, at least in our own eyes and/or Dev's eyes). Also, if we were in fact no longer a monarchy then that arguably meant we could not be a Dominion at the time, as Republics were not allowed in the Commonwealth until the Republic of India was accepted when it became a republic in 1950. And in any case when it became a republic it still automatically ceased to be the Dominion of India (1947-50, the first 2 1/2 years of its independence), and George VI ceased to be monarch of India at that same time (in January 1950). 8b - And as far as I know, our alleged non-membership (as in * 8 above) first occurred while we were still The Irish Free State, and should thus presumably be somehow mentioned in this article (preferably with citations) if it hasn't already been done (or if it hasn't been done adequately) 8c - I haven't checked whether it's been done and done adequately, and I'm not all that sure that I want to try, as at this point I'm rather more concerned about the potential future harm to this and perhaps other articles that may arise if the seemingly incorrect statement (that we left the Commonwealth when we renamed ourselves Ireland) stayed unchallenged. 8d - But, in terms of improving the article (which is the purpose of these Talk pages), it might be a good idea if somebody checked, even if that somebody isn't necessarily me. 8e - However what is 'adequate' in this context is not clear. Given the length of this note (which only sketches what seems needed), I suspect that ultimately this article needs to deal with the matter briefly but to wikilink to another article that deals with it in detail (rather similar to, and possibly part of, the article about the Irish Head of State from 1936 to 1949 - the two topics are related but not identical), if such an article exists, or if and when such an article gets written. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC) To many people around the world Ireland probably remained a Dominion until it formally left the Commonwealth in 1949. However, to most people in Ireland we had ceased to be a Dominion in 1916. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)) What rubbish, Ireland wasnt a diminion prior to the Anglo-Irish treaty, so how could we have ceased to be a diminion BEFORE we became one??? Murry1975 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Because the Easter Rising marked the end of British rule. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)) Have a read of this piece it matbe useful for yourself. Murry1975 (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Republic founded in 1916

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)) I'm sorry, I've no wish to be provocative. But can somebody please explain more clearly how the above (arguably at least apparently slightly provocative) statement is meant to help improve this article, as required by our Talk rules (WP:NOTFORUM)? I'm obliged by WP:AGF to assume that it does, so I assume it does, but how it does this is currently unclear, at least to me.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC) The point is that the Irish republic was created by its proclamation during the Easter Rising, and the establishing of an Irish parliament was merely a continuation of the process of building the republic. The formal declaration of independence from the UK in 1919 did not mean the Irish republic had not already existed in the opinion of republicans since 1916. (ColmMcCrory (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)) Well I'm still not clear what it has to do with this article, but it has prompted me to attempt to add the 1916 Irish Republic to the article on Irish States since 1171 (though I suspect I'll be reverted, given that otherwise I'd have expected it to be there already). Come to think of it, I think I'll create it as a redirect article, which may be useful in future. So thanks for that, ColmMcCrory, even though I'm worried that by thanking you I may encourage you to continue ignoring WP:NOTFORUM, which would not be good for either you or Wikipedia. But thanks, anyway. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC) My apologies, ColmMcCrory - I now see from your most recent edits that you were not in fact violating WP:NOTFORUM. A tip for the future: Especially (but not only) if asked what one of your Talk sections has to do with the article, you can make it clear that it is relevant to the article by using a short phrase such as 'Contrary to what is said in the article' (ideally you can also indicate where in the article this is said, but that may often be far too much like hard work). Anyway, once again, my apologies. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Incidentally, regarding your Edit Description that the Republic was proclaimed by Pearse, in 1916 the Irish Republic was proclaimed by the Proclamation's 7 signatories, of whom the one in a special position of prominence is not Patrick Pearse but Tom Clarke (and I suspect that therein may lie a rather interesting but possibly very controversial piece of hidden history - if you're interested in hearing a little more, you can ask me on my Talk page). However, I'm clearly being an awful hypocrite, as this point, while just possibly useful information for you and perhaps for your future edits, doesn't seem to have much to do with the contents of this article :) (which is why any more discussion about it would have to take place elsewhere, such as on my Talk page, or perhaps the Pearse and/or Clarke Talk pages). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC) To Murry1975, thanks for the useful link to Irish Declaration of Independence.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

George VI

• First, to ColmMcCrory, thanks for what turned out to be a usefully thought-provoking edit by you, and my apologies for reverting it, as with hindsight it turns out the edit I've now made could have been made without reverting you.
• Second, I feel the current edit improves things, by making it clear that the question is debatable, and guiding the reader to where it is debated. This seems better than either leaving it as if it were an agreed fact, or leaving my citation request from last month, which probably can't adequately be satisfied, because the relevant sources are hard to find and presumably contradict each other, and the wikilinked article presumably does (or, supposing it doesn't yet, can eventually do) a far better job of explaining things than a couple of conflicting citations ever could.
• Third, if anybody thinks the same general effect can be achieved with better wording or whatever, please feel free to try.
• Incidentally, it probably no longer matters, but purely as a minor point of interest, the claim in an edit description that George was undoubtedly King of the Irish Free State for a day is historically questionable, as arguably Edward VIII remained King for that day, as it is at least claimed that we refused to officially accept his abdication until we had rushed through legislation that arguably abolished the monarchy (whether or not it did is still debated by scholars and others, as per the wikilinked article). But in any case the dates given for George are (and already were) "1936-37", which is a lot more than a day.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Claim to Northern Ireland?

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)

Rob984 the 1922 Constitution, doesnt lay any claim and I dont think any of the 27 amendments did either, I may be wrong. Murry1975 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

French or Maxwell?

Which of the two commanders should be named here, or both, and what is the source?

The Easter Rising of 1916, and in particular the decision of

• Field Marshal Sir John French
• General Maxwell

to execute many of its leaders....

Qexigator (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The book "The Man Who Lost Ireland" says that French had already agreed as C-in-C of Home Forces that the rebel leaders would have to be executed before Maxwell left London for Dublin. (PaddyDaly (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

French and Maxwell each have their own article, where this should be mentioned. Do we need to name either here? Or if one, why not both: but would that be unduly detailed? Qexigator (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"PaddyDaly", there is no book called The Man Who Lost Ireland; that's the name of a 2006 documentary by RTE. You are a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter and cannot contribute here. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet: So, back to Maxwell? If so, any source? Qexigator (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Qexigator, I'm not a topic expert. I'm only here to check our persistent-but-banned friend HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in here with sockalert, and maybe some of our topic experts will be able to resolve- in short order, with luck. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

French selected Maxwell to take over the situation in Dublin, who arrived there after the rebellion had been suppressed by Brig Gen Lowe, French adding that he would not interfere with Maxwell's actions. From Maxwell's page: "Maxwell arrived in Ireland on Friday 28 April as "military governor" with "plenary powers" under Martial law. He set about dealing with the rebellion under his understanding of Martial law. During the week 2–9 May, Maxwell was in sole charge of trials and sentences by "field general court martial", which was trial without defense or jury and in camera. He had 3,400 people arrested, 183 civilians tried, 90 of whom were sentenced to death. Fifteen were shot between 3 and 12 May."

I suggest some text to the effect "The Easter Rising of 1916, and in particular the decision of the assigned military commander General Maxwell to execute many of its leaders after courts-martial, generated sympathy for the republican cause in Ireland." French may carry "some" responsibility for Maxwell's actions, but not in the first instance. Osioni (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Orsini, for explanation about the edit which put Maxwell instead of French (20:41, 5 December 2014)[1]. Others may wish to comment. Qexigator (talk) 21:05, 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)

Why not simply, "The Easter Rising of 1916, and in particular the execution of several of its leaders, generated sympathy..."? After all, it was their execution, not the decision to do it or the fact that they were sentenced by court-martial, that generated sympathy. I suggest "several" rather than "many", because the latter could mean dozens, or even hundreds. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes good editing sense to me, given that all the details are readily accessible by inline links. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Another view --- resolving by whittling away relevant content (on the premise it exists elsewhere) takes from highlighting the dramatic course of events at the time. It could remain as it now is, with "several" in place of "many" as suggested. Osioni (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken and agree, but why not give the number? "several" looks like about half-a-doaen. Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note user PaddyDaly blocked as sock. Murry1975 (talk) 19:45, 15 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)

That is the best so far:

The Easter Rising of 1916, and in particular the decision of the military's commander to execute many of its leaders after courts-martial, generated sympathy for <insert>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</insert> the republican cause in Ireland.

Qexigator (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And if you want a ref: Marie Coleman, The Irish Revolution, pp. 26-8. Scolaire (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

done. Qexigator (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

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)) It was not described as a republic until 1949. However, there were no constitutional changes made in 1949. Éire (Ireland) was a republic from the coming into force of the 1937 constitution, even though the constitution did not make that explicit, for political reasons pertaining to partition. Scolaire (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC) There are massive controversies over the name as well so please seek consensus rather than making direct changes to the article. This may even be covered by the arbitration ruling on the Troubles. ----Snowded TALK 13:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of addition to main template in "Currency" subsection

"IF" there is only one main section allowed then why does the template allow more than one and even adds an s to "article" along with and to the extra wording.

• Main article: Irish pound
• Main articles: Irish pound and Coins of the Republic of Ireland

A template error would usually result when trying to expand a template beyond what is allowed. With that in mind, inclusion of the "Coins of the Republic of Ireland", which I am almost certain qualifies as currency, is in order either to be included in the "main" template or as a "See also" template.

I will look into the issue further but apparently it is actually allowed because a section, or subsection, can include broad content that might be covered more extensively in a relevant title, or more than one, such as this instance. This would necessitate linking to multiple relevant "main" articles. Otr500 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of what is allowed but of what is needed. The subsection is "Currency"; the currency was the Irish pound; therefore the main article is "Irish pound". "Coins of the Republic of Ireland" is in no sense the main article for the "Currency" section of "Irish Free State". If it had been the case that some other currency had been introduced in the 1920s or early 1930s, then there would be a necessity for more than one main article. That's why the template has that facility. It's not intended as a "see also". Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be an summary addition to the content to bring the "main article" in line with the article. The Irish pound was not actually the currency of the Irish Free State but of Ireland beginning in 1938. The Currency Act, 1927, Adaptation Order, 1938, did provide that the Irish pound would be substituted for the Saorstát pound, "in every place in which the latter expression occurs", and for correctness something along these lines needs to be included. Otr500 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I would maintain that there is no "Main" article at all. Neither the Irish pound article nor the Coins of the ROI article contain any information about the currency of the IFS that is not already in this section. One of the reasons for a "Main" template is to stop a section becoming bloated with content that is already available elsewhere, but that isn't going to happen here (another reason is to advise the reader that there is a full article on the topic, which in this case is untrue). Scolaire (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And I agree. Otr500 (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Predecessor state in infobox

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)

Did "Southern Ireland" ever even get off the theory stage to be a predecessor state? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Four (unionist) MPs met in Dublin, elected a speaker, and adjourned sine die. That was it. No prime minister, no executive, no institutions, therefore no state. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Weasel Words

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)

I would favour the addition of "technically" per WP:BLUE. Northern Ireland was never a part of the Free State in any real sense. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Finding no source for "opt out" in the artcle, I have added one. Qexigator (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

+ Put back "technically". Qexigator (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Times headline

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)

Lead

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)

According to the terms of the treaty ALL Ireland became part of the Irish Free State when it legally came into existence on 6 December 1922.

Although, under the terms, the powers of the Free State would not extend to Northern Ireland for one month after this date, in which time Northern Ireland could apply to opt out of the Free State.

On 7 December 1922, the day after the establishment of the Irish Free State, the Parliament of Northern Ireland addressed the King requesting its secession from Irish Free State. The address was unanimous, with the abstentionist Nationalist and Sinn Féin members absent. The King replied shortly thereafter to say that he had caused his Ministers and the Government of the Irish Free State to be informed that Northern Ireland was to do so.

Northern Ireland opted out on 8 December 1922. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You're still parroting the out-of-date Wikipedia articles (including this one) that had wrong information that has now been rectified. I showed here that all the sources say Northern Ireland remained in the United Kingdom, and that there are no reliable sources that say that ALL Ireland became part of the Irish Free State. This article now gives the correct situation: "legally the terms of the Treaty applied only to the 26 counties, and the government of the Free State never had any powers—even in principle—in Northern Ireland." The lead can't say the opposite of what the article says. You know this, and your continuing attitude of I didn't hear that is disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources trump editors own interpretation of primary sources on Wikipedia. See WP:OR "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.". Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Preceding state

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)

Independent state

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)

That is the distinction between legal theory and political reality. In theory there were limits to Irish independence post 1922, in practice the country was fully independent. The Statute of Westminster made no difference - the Imperial parliament did not purport to legislate for the IFS between 1922 and 1931 so stopping doing so changed nothing. 1931 was not "legislative independence" in any meaningful sense. The civil war seems to still generate a lot of emotion and a lot of misunderstanding of actual historical fact. Treaty ports yes but that doesn't mean IFS wasn't independent. That's like saying Cyprus isn't independent because the British still have sovereign bases there. Zymurgy (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Zymurgy The irish free state was not able to alter the terms of the treaty until 1931 and therefore could not remove the oath of allegiance, elect their own head of state, remove the office of governor general, stop paying land annuities etc until 1931. How is that full independence?112.217.228.212 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Would a comment in the article on the Free State's legal status and the de facto political reality of its ability to legislate/form foreign relations/raise a military etc be useful? WatermillockCommon (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it didnt have complete legislative independence. If the Irish free state wished to repeal or change the anglo-irish treaty or any of the specific agreements in the treaty via legislation it would not have been able to pre-1931. I would agree that the fact that it was very close to independence should be mentioned.112.217.228.212 (talk) 16:16, 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)

I don't think that's a great phrase - that's called quoting out of context! Consider the rest of the comments not just the first sentence. Ireland today isn't completely independent either - do you want to change that article to say Ireland is quasi independent? Quasi independent is a term for regions like Scotland or Catalonia or Quebec or something not for countries like the dominions in the 1920s. Here's an example - Canada and the Irish Free State were sovereign members of the League of Nations yet were dominions. If a country is independent enough to be a member of the UN or the League of Nations it can be called "independent". By the way - "admitted" is a bit adversarial - I'm trying to explain not to argue. I do accept the point you make that sovereignty was enhanced and increased in the years post-1922 but it is a matter of degree. The largely symbolic restraints (eg oath = empty formula) that applied initially did not make the IFS any less independent than Canada or Australia. Leave constitutional theory to one side - for all practical purposes Ireland was independent in 1922. Zymurgy (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we would need a good reliable source for independent. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources, not editors own thoughts. Dmcq (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the dominion article refers to the free state and other dominions as "semi-independent polites", I think for the sake of being consistent the free state should not be refered to as indepenent. also as Dmcq points out any claim about independence should be reliably sourced.112.217.228.212 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Northern Ireland opts out 2

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)

I took out text in my revert, but put back the quote subsequently. As I explained in the edit, the Secretary of State (not the Home Secretary) was explaining an anomaly that was thrown up by the legislation, and which affected the Ireland Bill then going through Parliament. 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. To use his quote as if he was is not encyclopaedic. The section begins, as it should, with an analysis by a secondary source of the actual, real-world, practical effect of the 1922 legislation. 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. 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. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 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)

User: Scolaire - I’ve twice corrected your mistake about the date form when the Ulster month started. It’s been reverted twice. Even if you decide to ignore everything else I raise above, please could you correct it in the article? It’s basic stuff and I dont’ want to be accused of edit warring. I looked back and you’ve put the mistake back in again... Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I missed that correction in all the re-arrangements of paragraphs etc. I've put it back now. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. Glad we at least didn’t argue about something plainly fact based. Are we to take it that’s the end of your engagement in this discussion? Nothing to contribute on any of the other points. Are you going to offer an explanation of the secondary source that you are insisting be put, rather oddly, at the top? Are you goning to explain why you are insisting on referring to citizenship laws at the bottom when that has nothing to do with he topic? Do you understand what the secondary source means? If yes, let us know. We don’t! It’s sat up there at the top without any explantion or context. I’m all ears to hear why you think your current text has strengths and is better than anything I posted. Let’s get into it! It’s the Wiki way....or used to be in earlier days of Wiki. I think the current text is pretty ridiculous. I’ve offered reasons. I’m interested to hear why your think otherwise. Also, why in your response to me did you refer to things that weren’t in the article? You made spurious references to tanks rolling over the border or the like as if anything any person had added to the article suggested anything remotely in that vein. Do you disagree with me that the Secretary of State was a principal member of the UK government and was speaking as to the UK’s government’s interpretation of what happened in the 1920s? If yes, why do you disagree? You did, in your very short edit summary, say that we should seek a consensus. Let’s try. That requires time and participation. Consensus isn’t what happens when one editor reverts another editor’s edits without proper expalanation and threatens, one way or another, the other with sanctions if that editor presses the other to provide reasons or the like. Thanks User:Scolaire. Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland was never in the Free State. That is the bottom line. There was never a moment when the Free State government had jurisdiction over Northern Ireland (hence my admittedly over-dramatic reference to troops and civil servants). Northern Ireland absolutely maintained its constitutional position within the United Kingdom, and would have done so for the entire "Ulster month" even if it had dragged its feet on presenting the address to the king. That's what reliable secondary sources say. Here's another one:

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.)

The 1920 Act created Northern Ireland as a separate country within the United Kingdom. Maintaining the terms of the Act meant that Northern Ireland did not leave the United Kingdom and become part of another state. Specifically, it did not become part of the Irish Free State, on 6 December or on any other date.

Now, it may be that there are books published by reputable publishers or articles in academic journals dealing with the creation of the Free State, that give the opposing view (though nobody can seem to find one). If so, then you or anybody else can change the content of the section based on those reliable sources. What you cannot do is take a quote by a minister in a marginally-related debate 27 years later and say "this represents the British government's stance on political and constitutional realities in 1922" – not unless reliable secondary sources have taken that quote and analyzed, evaluated or interpreted it in that way. That is Wikipedia policy.

It is necessary for the Austen analysis to go at the top of the section so that readers are not presented with this myth as fact, rather than at the end where it had the effect of "that's how it was, but some guy said in some book that that's not how it was." Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

On the contrary, I prefer to parse that first sentence – and Morgan's actual wording – because it ought to answer most, if not all of your questions. But first, may I ask you why you say I am taking a black and white view on this? It is you who are saying that Northern Ireland left the United Kingdom on 6 December and joined the Irish Free State, and that there are no two ways about it. And this despite the fact that in the 10+ years that this silliness was on Wikipedia nobody was ever able to find a history of the period that says so! My edits (only that first sentence is mine) are intended to show that there was nothing black and white about it. So:

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.

Thus, to answer your Q2, the same ambiguity is in play. It allowed the Irish negotiators to present the fiction that "Ireland", in the sense of 32 counties, would become independent on a specified date, even though partition was a fait accompli and nothing in the Treaty was going to change that situation.

...and the government of the Free State never had any powers—even in principle—in Northern Ireland.

Morgan says:

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.

And finally, in reference to the "opt out" section 12 again:

Again, this seems to suggest an Irish Free State right, but the reference to the GOIA 1920 continuing is decisive of the issue.

"Is decisive of the issue", used by an expert in British constitutional law, means "that is the end of the argument." There never was the remotest possibility that the Irish Free State, on its creation, would have any power or jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was always meant to remain, and always did remain, a part of the United Kingdom.

As regards the man who was Home Secretary 20-odd years after the events, you may speculate about what was behind his remarks, and so can I, but there is an important difference between "the four holders of the Great Offices of State in the United Kingdom" and the pope: the former are not infallible. As you rightly say, a speech in parliament isn't definitive of anything alone. I've already cited WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" (emphasis in original). Have you found a secondary source that refers to that 1949 remark yet? Have you looked?

Finally, can you please dispense with that annoying condescension. You may or may not be older than me, but I have been contributing here twice as long as you, I have made 25,000 edits to your 1,700, on over 5,000 pages to your 600, and I have never seen you being awarded a barnstar or congratulated on a particularly useful contribution. So let's just keep this adult to adult, okay? Scolaire (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Scolaire - thanks for taking the time to share some thoughts. All of that certainly shows considerable thought on your part. It may sound condescending but I’m proud of your efforts around that. You’ve also referred to your many edits. They don’t surprise me in the slightest. Well done. I appreciate you’ve mentioned something about being ‘adult to adult’. You may not appreciate this, but that’s not my experience (here or on previous occasions) of dealing with you. But I don’t think we have enough mutual respect to have an honest discussion around how we feel (annoyed or otherwise). An honest discussion in that vein might only get personalized and sound petty. So let’s park that and stick to the subject matter. Could you set out your answer to question 1 in my list for me? Thanks! Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

And User:Scolaire, you cannot say that the only edit that is yours is the first one. You reverted a substantially revised piece that I prepared. One that was my attempt to explain the subject matter in a coherent way. More simply worded, probably. Not one that jumps straight to a highly cryptic sentence that took you several paragraphs to provide your interpretation of above. Neither of us can probably be objective about it. I’ve got my own modest skill set, you have whatever you have and I certainly feel there is a lot of pride bubbling about. If there wasn’t all that pride, I think you’d be the first to agree that the current article with this odd sentence at the beginning is awkward and disjointed. Any way, I am going on too long. The point is: Yours is not one small edit. You are exercising substantial control over the entire piece. You have Bar starts and thousands of edits behind you. I am a lowly editor with no alliance of supporters on Wikipedia. If I tried to assert my disagreement with you by reverting or messing about with the wording of the piece, I’d likely get suspended quicker than one could say a Hail Mary. Wiki ‘law’ is swift and rough. I point that out to flag your personal responsibiliity for the piece. Not that I need do that, probably. You’ve pointed out that you are a barnstar trooper no less and likely take responsibility seriously. Good man! Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on Frenchmalawi, this is far from the first time when you've had issues with other editors and it's not because then have fan clubs it's because you have not been able to gain consensus. That last post addresses no matters of fact, no reference to reliable sources and seems a little self-pitying. Please keep the personal stuff out of this.-----Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Snowded. Frenchmalawi, I asked you to cut out the condescension. Instead you've heaped it on. "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.

When I said that the first sentence was my only edit, I meant that the first sentence is the only substantive content that I added to the section. All the rest was added by a different user a long time ago. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

I've answered your Question 1: you may speculate about what was behind his remarks, and so can I, but it would be original research per WP:PRIMARY. If you're interested, you can read my take on it in my first post at the top of this section. I don't propose to say anything more on that or anything else. We have discussed your edits, and my reverts, and I have nothing to add. Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the paragraph on that debate is original research, both in your version and in mine. I'm taking it out. Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

Stop wasting people's time Frenchmalawi - I was tempted just to strike that paragraph and if you carry on this way I will. If you have specific concrete proposals for changes to the article supported by reliable sources list them - leave any personal commentary out of it -----Snowded ^TALK 13:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Frenchmalawi. Once again you say you'll put aside personal bickering, only to ramp up the incivility: "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."

You're quite right that I was mistaken in thinking I had answered that question. On reading it again the straight answer is, I don't have a clue, and I couldn't care less. Its importance to the Wikipedia article on the Irish Free State is as close to zero as makes no difference, for all the reasons I have already stated. Now, that definitely is my final word on the matter. Scolaire (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User: Scolaire, I must certainly not be as learned as you on Wiki rules... as you think I’ve broken some and are threatening to get me thrown off Wiki! I will try not to offend you! Encouraging a fellow editor to dig deep and engage in the difficult substance of a topic (which is hard work for many... people often get lazy and disengage while still seeking to assert control over an article) is being called incivility no less... Oh well. What can I do...

Anyway, that you ‘don’t have a clue’ (your words, not mine - please don’t take offence!) is something I’d have guessed, but knowing your vast experience on Wikipedia with real commitment and Barnstars to show it, I am disappointed you couldn’t care less. Surely not? Really? Surely you care about the contents of this article that you are reverting edits on? Our discussion, as you very rightly and correctly pointed out (I don’t disagree), concerns the Irish Free State. The word ‘Irish’ in that title is a bit of a clue. Question 1 I have for you is Do you agree that Irish law is relevant to a discussion on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State?

I hope you don’t disagree with me about that. So, if you don’t disagree with me, my Question 2 here is: Do you agree that we are discussing what is in no small part a legal question? Until now, I assumed you’d agree with me about that. After all, you are the one who has insisted on putting a sentence that purports to describe statements from a legal textbook at the very top of the section? You must surely agree that our discussion relates to legal matters.

I apologise for once again taking a few days to respond. Finding time for anything during the week is a bit of an uphill battle of late. The weekends are when I tend to have a little time. My edits may not always very long, but I find I need to have time to get into the ‘thinking space’ that I think proper editing should come from. So my response once again is a little tardy. But knowing your commitment to Wiki principles, I hope you’ll see my questions here as what they are. An attempt to find some common ground with you, from which we can build and try to achieve a consensus. If we can agree on these two questions, let’s move on from here and explore together and move past not having a clue. I do have some clues. I am very willing to explore with you. With very best wishes and no intentions to offend you at all!!!Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction succeeded the Irish Free State?

User:Scolaire reverted my correction on the above. Why? Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What follows "s1 =" in the infobox is automatically wikilinked, so your edit had the effect of changing it to Ireland, i.e. the island article. The article on the state, from 1937 on, is at Republic of Ireland. Looking back at the history now, I see it once said "Republic of Ireland{{!}}Ireland". I would have no problem with going back to that. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Why was map showing territory of Irish Free State with Northern Ireland in light green because of IFS claim it was within IFS at formation deleted?

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)

I had forgotten about your addition in February 2022. That did indeed add an alternative point of view in the relevant section, on whether Northern Ireland became a part of the Irish Free State. But it is not strong enough to be able to say that "Irish law asserts", and it is not important enough to add it to the infobox. The whole business is trivia; the Free State was 26 counties, and the map accurately reflects that. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Removing the section

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)

Seems reasonable. Legally, there was a brief period when the whole island "moved out" but it was nominal and AFAIK, no action affecting the whole island was taken during that period of x number of hours, as all involved knew very well how the play would be performed, and the consequences if anyone had done anything other than what happened. So for 99.99% of its existence, and all governmental purposes, the Free State was 26 counties (but we note in passing the technical existence of a brief period of 32-county transition). SeoR (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)