Re: WW2 and the disintegration of British empire

On Sep 18, 8:53 pm, Don Phillipson <d.phillipsonSPAMBL...@xxxxxx>
wrote:

Gavin Bailey "The Amaurotean Capitalist" <g.j.bai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in messagenews:j36ve35pum6u718ncrpkb0bkv9j6vl8f1v@xxxxxxxxxx

Before 1949 the Irish Republic was a
Dominion, and every citizen of it had the right to a passport issued
by the authority of the relevant head of state - George V or George VI.

This may be confused. The Irish Free State (dating from the
1921 Treaty but incorporating some features of the rebel
proclamations of 1919) avoided calling itself a dominion -- but
took part in the great 1926 Imperial Conference that negotiated
the legal form of "dominion status" and wrote it into the Statute
of Westminster (1931) and perhaps later Commonwealth
Conferences. These were mostly economic in agenda,
both in 1926 and after the world crash of 1930.

The Statesman's Year Book writes enigmatically that after 1925
"constitutional links between Saorstdt Eireann and the UK were
gradually removed by the Dail Eireann. The remaining formal
association with the Briitish Commonwealth by virtue of the
External Relations Act 1936 was severed when the Republic
of Ireland Act, 1948, came into operation onn 18 April, 1949."

Relations between the IFS and the UK were never theoretically
clarified, presumably because this suited both Irishmen and
Britons 1921-1949.

The Irish Free State's position was entirely unambiguous prior to
1936; it was a British dominion. This status was established by the
first two articles of the 1921 treaty, and was also stated in Article
1 of the 1922 constitution. The King was also explicitly stated to
form one of the three parts of the Oireachtas (parliament) by Article
12 of the constitution.

In 1933 the subordination of the constitution to the terms of the 1921
treaty was removed; the controversial oath to the King, required of
members of the Oireachtas and non-parliamentary ministers, was also
abolished. As is typical with most of the Irish legislation from this
period amending the constitutional relationship with the UK and the
British monarchy, the Act of Oireachtas that brought about these
changes is carefully worded to avoid explicitly admitting what that
constitutional relationship actually was. In other words, the
constitutional relationship was not directly admitted, but rather was
referred to by a mixture of euphemism and circuitous language.

Later in 1933 the right of reserving parliamentary bills for the
King's pleasure was also abolished, although this could be seen as a
somewhat more technical amendment since the so-called Balfour
Declaration of 1926 had already established that the British
government would not advise [i.e. instruct] either the King or
Governors General in relation to dominion legislation, and thus the
possibility of reservation could no longer arise. A further amendment
abolished the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the [UK's]
Privy Council, although this right had also been a long-running bone
of contention with the Canadians as well.

Which brings us to 1936. The Abdication Crisis was seized upon by the
Irish government as an opportunity to abolish the office of Governor
General and to remove virtually all remaining aspects of the King's
remaining constitutional role within Ireland. The wording used to
redefine the King's position was deliberately ambiguous, leading to
the state effectively becoming a republic in all but name, a situation
that was to remain unresolved until 1948. In fact some of the changes
made proved to be too ambiguous even for the Irish, with further
changes made in 1937 to tidy up some messy loose-ends in time for the
introduction of a new constitution later that year.

The Irish government's policy of keeping things ambiguous was driven
by two things: the need to avoid the British government kicking out
Irish workers from the UK, and a refusal to openly admit to the
consequences of a treaty that they disagreed with. Note that it was
not until 1932 that anti-treaty republicans came to power, and that it
was only with their removal from power that a new government was able
to cross the Rubicon and pass legislation changing the "description"
of the state to "Republic of Ireland". However, until that happened
the Irish state's position in British law was quite clear: it was a
dominion.

Incidentally, the Irish government was represented at many other
imperial conferences besides those you've mentioned. Although they
seem to have not attended a number of conferences from c. 1936
onwards, they were still represented at some meetings as late as 1947,
most notably for the conference on nationality and citizenship.

The clear precedent was established by
the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947.
1. Becoming a republic took any country out of the Commonwealth.
2. Any ex-member country could apply to rejoin; rejoining
required the approval of a majority of other Commonwealth
members.
Thus for example India and Pakistan rejoined (establishing
precedent #2), Burma chose not to rejoin, South Africa left
the Commonwealth when it became a republic in 1961 (#1)
and rejoined only 40 years later (#2) and so on.

None of that was established by Indian independence, since neither
India nor Pakistan became republics immediately. What did set a
precedent was India's request to remain a member of the Commonwealth
once its new constitution was drafted a couple of years later.

As for a prospective republic applying to rejoin, I'm not sure there
is such a thing as a requirement for a majority of existing members to
approve it; Commonwealth meetings operate by consensus, and the
organisation has no formal constitution of its own.

But it is confusing to say "before 1949 the Irish Republic was a
Dominion." If the IFS was ever a dominion, proclaiming itself a
republic in 1949 ended that status (#1).

At the risk of being labelled a pedant, the Irish state ceased to be
known as the Irish Free State with the introduction of its new
constitution in 1937.

The point about passports derives from the original Treaty of
1921 which guaranteed that citizens of the IFS would be
perpetually free to live and work in the UK and even vote in
UK elections. I believe thiis right was not reciprocal.

The 1921 treaty does not in fact say any of that. I don't believe any
of the various agreements between the two governments in the 1920s and
1930s do either, though I'm open to be corrected.

Fundamental to understanding the status and rights of Irish citizens
within the UK is the fact that what became the Irish Free State had
formerly been a full part of the UK itself. British nationality law
at the time was based on the principle of jus soli; that is, a person
born on British soil was generally speaking a British citizen as of
right, and naturally that applied to just about any Irish citizen at
that time. Until 1949 that situation also applied (from the British
viewpoint) in relation to persons born on the territory of the Irish
state, since as a dominion it still counted as British soil for
nationality purposes [I think I've got this right!].

Only with the passage of the UK's Republic of Ireland Act 1949 did the
status of Irish citizens within the UK become formally anomalous.
Without having researched the background of this piece of legislation,
I'd suggest that there were two main practical reasons for the status
quo being continued by it, and one important secondary political
reason:

1. Many Irish citizens would still have been British citizens by
virtue of place of birth; this could of course have been done away
with as well, but that would have had awkward consequences for any
children they might have had in the UK. Sorting out the rights of
Irish citizens married to British citizens would also have been a real
mess that would have created all sorts of problems without any obvious
benefit.

2. The UK was actively encouraging immigration due to post-war labour
shortages, so the Irish in (or coming to) the UK filled a real need.
Removing their right to do so might have satisfied those who like nice
neat pigeonholes for people, but would have caused problems for
businesses in the UK that needed all the help they could get at the
time.

3. Finally, and perhaps somewhat incidentally, I suspect the British
government wouldn't have wanted to create needless difficulties for
Northern Ireland; the Act did provide the first formal guarantee of
its status within the UK after all.

The retention of a right to vote is perhaps the oddest aspect of the
arrangements, but presumably it was considered too much aggravation to
exclude that specific area. I thought I could remember British
citizens being given a limited set of additional rights in the
Republic following on from the 1998 peace agreement, although I
haven't been able to find anything in support of that. Exact parity
would presumably require the bother of a constitutional amendment,
though.


--
AGw.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Goldsmiths Ideas
    ... I thought at least part of the reason for Irish ... Citizens retaining the same voting rights as British Citizens when the ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: WW2 and the disintegration of British empire
    ... Nonetheless the consitutional basis for the Irish ... 1921 Treaty, which was a dominion and was referred to as such in the ... British officialdom was largely unhappy with the ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... > But all EU citizens are allowed to live and work in any other EU ... instance Irish citizens have always been able to vote in elections for the ... British Parliament as long as they are resident in the UK. ... The original Ireland Act specifically stated that people from the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Return Stonehenge says archdruid
    ... > But all EU citizens are allowed to live and work in any other EU ... instance Irish citizens have always been able to vote in elections for the ... British Parliament as long as they are resident in the UK. ... The original Ireland Act specifically stated that people from the ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Goldsmiths Ideas
    ... jumped out for me was his plans to restrict the voting rights Irish Citizens ... I thought at least part of the reason for Irish ... Citizens retaining the same voting rights as British Citizens when the ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)