What were the differences between Home Rule and the Treaty ?

HellsAngel

Wondering the above. I'd imagine the Treaty was giving much more than Home Rule as the Free State had economic control, make laws, raise it's own police, army, devise it's own educational policies etc. Sure it didn't get us the 32 county Republic we wanted, but it must have been a lot more than just Home Rule which I'd imagine could just work within the perimeters as dictated by Westminister ?

patsman07

HellsAngel wrote: »

Wondering the above. I'd imagine the Treaty was giving much more than Home Rule as the Free State had economic control, make laws, raise it's own police, army, devise it's own educational policies etc. Sure it didn't get us the 32 county Republic we wanted, but it must have been a lot more than just Home Rule which I'd imagine could just work within the perimeters as dictated by Westminister ?

Great question. Would have thought economic control and educational policies would have come with Home Rule. Scotland today, for example seems to have its own education system. I would have thought the main difference (apart from the others you mention-army etc) was that the Free State was free to formulate its own foreign policy, attend the League of Nations etc.

Fratton Fred

I believe the Irish negotiators were offered dominion status similar to south Africa's in an all island basis. If this is correct, surely this would have been better in the long run? With the benefit of hindsight obviously.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I believe the Irish negotiators were offered dominion status similar to south Africa's in an all island basis. If this is correct, surely this would have been better in the long run? With the benefit of hindsight obviously.

really nice of the english to offer us dominion status for our country that they had occupied , i hope we were grateful . do you ever feel ashamed of your countrys history fred ?

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I believe the Irish negotiators were offered dominion status similar to south Africa's in an all island basis. If this is correct, surely this would have been better in the long run? With the benefit of hindsight obviously.

Never heard that one before, link/proof ?

As for the above " been better in the long run " Ah well we all know the great success story Britain made of South Africa Sure their's nothing like "the British sense of fairplay" is there :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/july_1921.htm

Read Jul-14 onwards.

I find this period fascinating. Any chance you and Dan could cut out the childish bating.

danbohan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/july_1921.htm

Read Jul-14 onwards.

I find this period fascinating. Any chance you and Dan could cut out the childish bating.

did you ever consider that your pro british , our boys right or wrong , or your persistent denial of any wrongdoing by british forces not just in ireland but throughout the world might be consider as ''childish baiting'' by some of us , fred ,

but getting back to the subject , whatever would make you think that haveing had dominion status might have been better ?

Fratton Fred

danbohan wrote: »

did you ever consider that your pro british , our boys right or wrong , or your persistent denial of any wrongdoing by british forces not just in ireland but throughout the world might be consider as ''childish baiting'' by some of us , fred ,

but getting back to the subject , whatever would make you think that haveing had dominion status might have been better ?

Nice input Dan.

brianthebard

danbohan banned for 3 days. mod.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I believe the Irish negotiators were offered dominion status similar to south Africa's in an all island basis. If this is correct, surely this would have been better in the long run? With the benefit of hindsight obviously.

You mean after the war of independence? if dominion status had been offered in 1912 it would have benefited the nationalist party a lot and there might not have been an Easter Rising, but equally it might have caused a rising in Belfast. After 1916 and certainly 1921 dominion status wasn't enough.

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/july_1921.htm

Read Jul-14 onwards.

I find this period fascinating. Any chance you and Dan could cut out the childish bating.

Useless link, " Lloyd George offers Dominion status and threatens terrible coercion if no settlement.........3rd meeting. - Lloyd George says if no partition then civil war "

So Dominion status to 26 counties, so much for your contention in post# 5 " similar to south Africa's in an all island basis. " Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

As for childish baiting by me and Dan on the forum......

Fratton Fred

You didn't read the entry for Jul-21 then.

Edit. Actually, yeah, you are right. I read it that domain status for all of Ireland was offered.

Interesting though that De Valera at the time was open to partition. If you go through all the months, it is a very interesting read.

PatsytheNazi

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You didn't read the entry for Jul-21 then.

Edit. Actually, yeah, you are right. I read it that domain status for all of Ireland was offered.

Interesting though that De Valera at the time was open to partition. If you go through all the months, it is a very interesting read.

Agree with you about Dev and partition. Snake oil salesman, he and FF made a career of proclaiming how FF the 'Republican Party' number one's aim was getting a United Ireland etc and denouncing everyone else.


( I know this is contemporary politics, but it's just like the FF promise in 2009 that the banking crisis would be " the cheapest bank bailout in the world ". Ah yes, that's FF for you :mad: )

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You didn't read the entry for Jul-21 then.

Edit. Actually, yeah, you are right. I read it that domain status for all of Ireland was offered.

Interesting though that De Valera at the time was open to partition. If you go through all the months, it is a very interesting read.

From the time of the 3rd home rule bill in 1912-14 partition in some format was always likely. De Valera recognised this after going to London hence he sent Collins later to negotiate terms.
Good link.

PatsytheNazi

Ok I know these links are from wiki, and if you don't like that just ignore them, but anyway :

*Home Rule - The Government of Ireland Act 1914 was the first law ever passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom that sought to establish devolved government in a part of the United Kingdom. However, the implementation of it was formally postponed for a minimum of twelve months with the outbreak of the First World War. Subsequent developments in Ireland led to further postponements, meaning that the Act never took effect; it was finally superseded by a fourth home rule bill (enacted as the Government of Ireland Act 1920).

** Government of Ireland Act 1920 (basis of the Free State) - The Act divided Ireland into two territories, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, each intended to be self-governing......The Provisional Government of Southern Ireland was constituted on 14 January 1922 “at a meeting of members of the Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland”........Following elections, in June 1922, that created the Third Dáil, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Third Dáil enacted a new constitution for the Irish Free State which came into being on 6 December 1922.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1914
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1920#Two_.27Home_Rule.27_Irelands

Interestingly, the 1914 Act was supposed to have been postponed for only 12 months and not until the end of the war ( WW1 ) as I thought !!!!! But of course after 12 months that carrot was then put back to, errrr, ahemm, be applied sometime in the future - and pigs would fly. Besides it seems that it would have only been a talking shop, just administering the budget from Westminister.

brianthebard

Well if the popular idea that the war was to be over by christmas is to be believed, postponing the bill 12 months would supposedly give the government plenty of time to have a war and get it over with, then hold the 1915 elections and implement Home Rule. Or another way of looking at it a new conservative government may have tried to stop the bill being made law.

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Interestingly, the 1914 Act was supposed to have been postponed for only 12 months and not until the end of the war ( WW1 ) as I thought !!!!! But of course after 12 months that carrot was then put back to, errrr, ahemm, be applied sometime in the future - and pigs would fly. Besides it seems that it would have only been a talking shop, just administering the budget from Westminister.

I think it was meant as Brian point out to suspend the bill till after the war. I.e. if the war was over in 11 months the bill would be adopted once the minimum period of 12 months had passed. Following the rising there were attempts to implement home rule while the war was still in progress to placate the rising nationalist feelings (so pigs did fly!!!).

MarchDub

Nationalists were skeptical about the Gov of Ireland Act 1914 for a number of reasons - there was the Edward Carson speech in Commons of 11th Feb 1914 demanding that Ulster be excluded from any Act and then declared that the very absence of not barring Ulster from exclusion in the bill actually meant that the exclusion of Ulster was in fact compatible with the bill.

Quote Carson : "If the exclusion of Ulster is not shut out, and if at the same time the Prime Minister says he cannot admit anything contrary to the fundamental principles of the bill, I think it follows that the exclusion of Ulster is not contrary to the fundamental principals of the bill".


And nationalists were concerned at how limited the power of the Irish parliament would be because the very first clause of the bill declared -

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish parliament or anything contained in this act, the supreme power and authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matter and things in Ireland and every part thereof".

PatsytheNazi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think it was meant as Brian point out to suspend the bill till after the war. I.e. if the war was over in 11 months the bill would be adopted once the minimum period of 12 months had passed. Following the rising there were attempts to implement home rule while the war was still in progress to placate the rising nationalist feelings (so pigs did fly!!!).

" there were attempts to implement home rule while the war was still in progress " Not aware of that, link/proof ? Was it genuine or hot air ?

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

" there were attempts to implement home rule while the war was still in progress " Not aware of that, link/proof ? Was it genuine or hot air ?

In May 1916 as a direct result of the Rising Asquith sought to get the Home Rule bill on the agenda - before other radicals looked for more than Home Rule - but it failed before it even got to a vote because of Unionist opposition and Lloyd George's double talk about a 'permanent' or 'temporary' exclusion of Ulster. Some historians claim that this and other efforts were to encourage the Irish-American electorate to support the US entering the war on the side of Britain - there had been large demos in the US against the British killing of the Rising leaders.

Then in July1917 an "Irish Convention" was held in Ireland to address the issue of Home Rule and the future of Ireland. There was by then widespread concern by the British that much of the Irish electorate and even some Home Rule MPs were slipping into the Sinn Fein camp. It was suggested to Redmond that he take Home Rule for the 26 counties - this was only five days after the Sinn Fein victory in South Longford by-election. The convention ultimately failed and the public momentum shifted further towards Sinn Fein.

Partition was something that the nationalists wanted to avoid and was a strong driving force behind their expressed aspirations.

You can get a lot of detailed information on all this in Home Rule: an Irish History by Alvin Jackson.

HellsAngel

MarchDub wrote: »

Nationalists were skeptical about the Gov of Ireland Act 1914 for a number of reasons - there was the Edward Carson speech in Commons of 11th Feb 1914 demanding that Ulster be excluded from any Act and then declared that the very absence of not barring Ulster from exclusion in the bill actually meant that the exclusion of Ulster was in fact compatible with the bill.

Quote Carson : "If the exclusion of Ulster is not shut out, and if at the same time the Prime Minister says he cannot admit anything contrary to the fundamental principles of the bill, I think it follows that the exclusion of Ulster is not contrary to the fundamental principals of the bill".


And nationalists were concerned at how limited the power of the Irish parliament would be because the very first clause of the bill declared -

"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish parliament or anything contained in this act, the supreme power and authority of the parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matter and things in Ireland and every part thereof".

So there does not seem to have been much substance behind Home Rule.

brianthebard

The third home rule bill was probably the weakest in my opinion. There were also supposed to be 40 Irish representatives at Westminister after an Irish parliament had been set up, their role and how important they would be to legislation was not clear however. It was a very muddled bill and that was one of the reasons why so much confusion and controversy came out of it imo.