User:Frenchmalawi/sandbox

Common Travel Area
HM Government 'Northern Ireland and Ireland' position paper; August 2017 

It is a partly administrative arrangement and has been in place for most of the period since the Irish Free State was established in 1922. The CTA is reflected in each state’s application of national immigration policy. In its current form the CTA was put on a statutory footing in the UK by the Immigration Act 1971. Under Ireland’s immigration law, British citizens are outside the definition of ‘non-national’ and are therefore exempt from immigration law.

In relation to the rights associated with the CTA, the rights of Irish citizens in the UK were first codified in 1949, when Ireland left the Commonwealth.

removed following the Agreement and the border today is invisible and seamless across its 310 mile/500 km length. As the Irish Government has said, “the disappearance of

For example, in the context of Cyprus, European Council regulation 866/2004 came into force in May 2004 to facilitate trade with areas which are temporarily outside the customs and fiscal territory of the Union.

Governor General of the Philippine Islands
Philippine Organic Act 1902

1905
February 4, 1905

An Act To amend an Act approved July first, nineteen hundred and two, entitled "An Act temporarily to provide for the administration of the affairs of civil government in the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes," and to amend an Act approved March eighth, nineteen hundred and two, entitled "An Act temporarily to provide revenue for the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes" and to amend an Act March second, nineteen hundred and three, entitled "An Act to establish a standard of value and to provide for a coinage system in the Philippine Islands," and to provide for the more efficient administration of civil government in the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes.

"SEC. 8. That the civil governor of the Philippine Islands shall hereafter be known as the governor-general of the Philippine Islands."

Philippine Organic Act of 1916
"SEC. 21. That the supreme executive power shall be vested in an executive officer, whose official title shall be "The Governor General of the Philippine Islands".

After
Could some one tell me if it's correct that when referring tot he former Ireland (i.e. the jurisdiction that existed before partition), we can't link the name Ireland. As there appears to be no webpage for the former Ireland, I linked the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but this was reverted and the Editor said there was a convention not to link "Ireland" in this context. Help please? Maybe we need a new "Ireland before partition" article? Or to change the convention? Doesn't make much sense to me to not clarify what you mean by linking in the usual way. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Irish Republic (1798)
The Irish Republic (Poblacht na hÉireann or Saorstát Éireann) was a short lived puppet state proclaimed as the successor to the Kingdom of Ireland during the Irish Rebellion of 1798. In theory the Republic covered the whole island of Ireland, but its functional control was limited to only very small parts of the country, notably in Connacht. The Kingdom of Ireland state forces maintained presence across most of the country including the main towns such as Dublin, Belfast and Cork.

At the time of the Rebellion of 1798 a force of 1,000 French soldiers under General Humbert landed at Killala in County Mayo. General Humbert declared the Irish Republic in his declaration to the people upon landing in Ireland on 22 August 1798:

"LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FRATERNITY, UNION, After several unsuccessful attempts, behold at last Frenchmen arrived amongst you... Union, Liberty, the Irish Republic! Such is our shout. Let us march. Our hearts are devoted to you; our glory is in your happiness."

After the Battle of Castlebar which took place on 27 August 1798, General Humbert, on 31 August 1798, issued the following decree, which inter alia appointed John Moore as the President of the Government of the Province of Connacht:

Army Of Ireland

Liberty, Equality

Head quarters at Castlebar, 14th Fructidor, sixth Year of the French Republic, One and Indivisible.

General Humbert, Commander in Chief of the Army of Ireland, desirous of organising with the least possible delay, an administrative power for the Province of Connaught, decrees as follows:

1.	The Government of the Province of Connaught shall reside at Castlebar till further orders.

2.	The Government shall be composed of twelve members, who shall be named by the General-in-chief of the French Army.

3.	Citizen JOHN MOORE is named President of the Government of the Province of Connaught, he is specially entrusted with the nomination and reunion of the members of the Government.

4.	The Government shall occupy itself immediately in organising the Military power of the Province of Connaught, and with providing subsistence for the French and Irish Armies.

5.	There shall be organised eight regiments of infantry, each of twelve hundred men, and four regiments of cavalry, each of six hundred men.

6.	The Government shall declare rebels and traitors to the country all those who having received clothing and arms, shall not join the army within four and twenty hours.

7.	Every individual from sixteen years of age to forty, inclusive, is REQUIRED in the name of the Irish Republic, to betake himself instantly to the French Camp, to march in a mass against the common enemy, the Tyrant of ANGLICIZED IRELAND, whose destruction alone can establish the independence and happiness of ANCIENT HIBERNIA.

The General Commanding-in-Chief

HUMBERT.

The rebel republic was a puppet state of the French Republic and was very short lived. Nevertheless, among the things which President Moore did have time to do was to issue "paper money to a considerable extent...[i]n the name of the French Government".

Defeat and Demise
On 8 September 1798, just weeks after its proclamation, the Republic was all but lost with defeat at the Battle of Ballinamuck. President Moore was captured by the British in Castlebar under Lieut.-Col. Crawford. He was executed the following year.General Humbert and his men were taken by canal to Dublin and repatriated. The British army then slowly spread out into the rebel held Province of Connacht in a brutal campaign of killing and house burning which reached its climax on 23 September 1798 when Killala was stormed and retaken with much slaughter. Members of the Irish Republic such as George Blake were hunted down and hanged with many other suspected insurgents including Fr Andrew Conroy who led French and Irish forces to Castlebar through the Windy Gap, a passage through the Mountains.

So called " Dominion of " India
The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:

The following are a sample (sample only) of the many treaties during the period that India was a Dominion. In none is India described as the "Dominion of India":
 * No. 1796. EXCHANGE OF LETTERS CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT1 BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND INDIA EXTENDING THE FINANCIAL AGREEMENT OF 14 AUGUST 19472 . NEW DELHI, 15 FEBRUARY 1948
 * No. 543. AGREEMENT1 BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF SWEDEN RELATING TO AIR SERVICES. SIGNED AT NEW DELHI, ON 21 MAY 1948

There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, it is abundantly clear that both its common name and its official name was never the "Dominion of India" although that term was used sometimes. Accordingly the article called "Dominion of India" should be moved to something more appropriate e.g. "India (Dominion)" and the article revised accordingly. I want to raise this here so as to (i) reach consensus as to the facts; (ii) agree where the article should be moved. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Indian state between 1947 and 1950 has been refereed to as "Dominion of India" in many official documents and in secondary sources. Check the jammu and kashmir Instrument of Accession, it clearly uses the term ""dominion of india". Other instruments of accessions signed by various princely states also use the term (they declare they are acceding to "dominion of india"). Here is a UN document from the 47-50 period which uses "dominion of india". The indian Constituent Assembly called itself the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India. So i dont think a move is necessary. The current title is fine--Sodabottle (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The current indian constitution itself refers to the predecessor state as "Dominion of India" in multiple places. (check out Article 370's text)--Sodabottle (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sodabottle, Taking each of your statements in turn:
 * "The Indian state between 1947 and 1950 has been refereed to as "Dominion of India" in many official documents". No one has denied that. But I deny that it was ever the common name. That is critical. Also, very clearly, the term "Dominion of India" was not used in many, many official documents - far more - e.g. the fundamental source (the Indian Independence Act) and all Treaties lodged with the United Nations.
 * Re. the "Instrument of Accession of Jamu and Kashmir" which you point to - read the very first lines - The expressly state that from 15 August 1947, there would be a new dominion to be known as "India" (not "Dominion of India") quoting the wording of the Indian Independence Act itself. The fact that the term Dominon of India is also used does not take from the fact that the Instrument itself sets out expressly how the Indian Independence Act itself determined how the new Dominion would be named.
 * The fact that the Constitution includes reference to "Dominion of India" does not add one bit to whether or not that term was the common name (it clearly was not the official name - as per the Indian Independence Act) during the short era of the Indian Dominion.
 * In summary - (1) You have not disputed that "India" (not "Dominion of India") was the official name of the Dominion; and (2) You have not shown that "Dominion of India" was the common name used for the country during the short period that it was a Dominion. Given the article is wrongly located because (1) it suggests (wrongly) that Dominion of India was the common name for the country at the time; and (2) the information on the article itself suggests that "Dominion of India" was the official name of the Dominion which it wasn't. I would welcome the views of other editors too. NelsonSudan (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The notion tha the use of the term "Dominion of India" in the present date constitution in some way reflects that the common or official name of the Indian dominion went by that name is further undermined by this exchange in the Indian parliament:
 * Its very clear that the use of the term in the Constitution was intended merely as a convenience to avoid confusion between the "old dominion" India and the new India....NelsonSudan (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its very clear that the use of the term in the Constitution was intended merely as a convenience to avoid confusion between the "old dominion" India and the new India....NelsonSudan (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo opinion
ICJ It does not ask about the legal consequences of that declaration. In particular, it does not ask whether or not Kosovo has achieved statehood...stinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 136). Accordingly, the Court does not consider that it is necessary to address such issues as whether or not the declaration has led to the creation of a State or the status of the acts of recognition in order to answer the question put by the General Assembly. The Court accordingly sees no reason to reformulate the scope of the question..... The Court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to break away from it. Indeed, it is entirely possible for a particular act — such as a unilateral declaration of independence — not to be in violation of international law without necessarily constituting the exercise of a right conferred by it. The Court has ==Northern Ireland "opts out"== The Treaty, and the legislation introduced to give it legal effect, implied that Northern Ireland would be a part of the Free State on its creation, but 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 Treaty was given legal effect in the United Kingdom through the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922. That act, which established the Free State, allowed Northern Ireland to "opt out" of it. Under Article 12 of the Treaty, Northern Ireland could exercise its option by presenting an address to the King requesting not to be part of the Irish Free State. Once the Treaty was ratified, the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland had one month (dubbed the "Ulster month") to exercise this option during which month the Government of Ireland Act continued to apply in Northern Ireland.

Realistically it was always certain that Northern Ireland would opt out of the Free State. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, speaking in the Parliament in October 1922 said that "when 6 December is passed the month begins in which we will have to make the choice either to vote out or remain within the Free State". He said it was important that that choice be made as soon as possible after 6 December 1922 "in order that it may not go forth to the world that we had the slightest hesitation". On the following day, 7 December 1922, the Parliament resolved to make the following address to the King so as to opt out of the Irish Free State:

"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senators and Commons of Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, having learnt of the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, being the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, do, by this humble Address, pray your Majesty that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland."

Discussion in the Parliament of the address was short. Prime Minister Craig left for London with the memorial embodying the address on the night boat that evening, 7 December 1922. The King received it the following day, The Times reporting:

"YORK COTTAGE, SANDRINGHAM, DEC. 8. The Earl of Cromer (Lord Chamberlain) was received in audience by The King this evening and presented an Address from the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland, to which His Majesty was graciously pleased to make reply."

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.

On 13 December 1922 Prime Minister Craig addressed the Parliament informing them that the King had responded to its address as follows:

"I have received the Address presented to me by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in pursuance of Article 12 of the Articles of Agreement set forth in the Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and of Section 5 of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, and I have caused my Ministers and the Irish Free State Government to be so informed."

been asked for an opinion on the first point, not the second. II

IRL
"We were not since 1936 a member of the Commonwealth of Nations."

"The clarification of our constitutional status achieved by the Bill will enable us to partake in international relations in a way that has not heretofore been possible."

"We here to-day are not proclaiming a republic anew; we are not establishing a new State. The Bill does not purport to be establishing a new State. We are simply giving a name to what exists—that is, a republican State"

"[t]here is no doubt whatever about it that our State is a republic and if I wanted to prove that it was, I would only have to point to the terms of this Bill, because there would be no use in giving a description of the State as a republic as this Bill does if it was not so in fact. You are not declaring a republic, but you are declaring that the State that exists is a republic."

"This Bill, if it were drafted without political considerations, would not be called—no ordinary draftsman would call it—a Republic of Ireland Bill. He would call it the description of the State Bill, because that is what it is. It is simply a declaratory statement of the position."

We are an independent Republic, associated as a matter of our external policy with the States of the British Commonwealth.

Let me read for the edification of the House the letters of credence supplied by our Minister for External Affairs to the foreign representatives of the Irish Republic over which President O'Kelly presides when they are going to represent us in Belgium or Sweden. This is addressed to the King of Sweden:—

In the election of 1937, in the course of which the plebiscite on the Constitution was taken, the Fine Gael Party published an advertisement in the newspapers in which they declared their policy to be: “The restoration” mark the word there, “of our membership of the Commonwealth.” There certainly did not appear in that advertisement any indication of a stepping-stone policy. If there was any suggestion of stepping anywhere, it was of stepping backwards.

“My Brother,

The Government of Ireland being desirous of maintaining the relations of friendship which exist between Ireland and Sweden, have advised me that they have judged it expedient that XY be accredited to Your [2182] Majesty in the character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Ireland.”

Mark the words, “have advised me.” Who is “me”? While I am finishing this there are seven Fianna Fáil Deputies here who might start writing on a piece of paper their forecast of who is “me”. It proceeds:—

“The Irish Government feel assured that the choice of XY would be perfectly agreeable to Your Majesty and that he will prove himself worthy of this mark of confidence.

I, therefore, request on behalf of the Government of Ireland that Your Majesty will give entire credence to all that ... shall communicate to Your Majesty in their name, and I take this opportunity of renewing to Your Majesty the assurance of my sincere friendship, and of the unfeigned respect and esteem which I entertain for Your Majesty's person and character.

Given at my Court at Buckingham Palace, 20th day of June, 1946.

I am, Sir, My Brother, Your Majesty's Good Brother,

GEORGE, REX IMPERATOR.

Countersigned—

EAMON DE VALERA.

1920 Act
"the secession from the United Kingdom or from the Empire of Ireland, in whole or in part, can never be tolerated."

"The division of Ireland, I need hardly tell the House, is distasteful to the Government, just as it is distasteful to all Irishmen..."

"All of us hope 929 that the division may be temporary only, and our arrangement has, therefore, been to frame the Bill in such a manner as may lead to a union between the two parts of Ireland"

" A grant of Customs duties, necessitating a Customs barrier between Southern and Northern Ireland, would be impracticable, a disuniting influence and 938 possibly nugatory, and, in my judgment, would very likely set up an almost insurmountable obstacle to future union."

"Finally I come to our proposal with regard to the Irish Executive. The Office of Lord Lieutenant will continue to exist but there shall be no longer any religious disability attaching to it. It will be open to all subjects of the Crown irrespective of creed. We have fixed the term of office for six years without prejudice, of course, to the power of His Majesty to revoke appointments, and with the intent, to use the words of the Clause, that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. There is no provision in this Bill, nor was there in any of the others or in the existing Act, for the continuance of the historic, but dubiously delectable, office of Chief Secretary. These words of mine, may, therefore, very well be the "Lay of the Last Minstrel."

"the vast majority of the people of that country look upon their present form of Government as the most abominable form of government that has ever ruled in Ireland...[W]e have drifted in Ireland into a form of government by 946 imprisonment, by deportation, by arrests, by incarceration without trial until recently we have found that the surest way to an Irish prison was to get elected in Ireland by the Irish people for any office in Ireland."

"We ought, therefore, not to deceive ourselves with the thought that any such measure imposed on Ireland and forced by this superior Parliament will allay that patriotic demand or settle this century-old claim. Two Parliaments are no substitute for the one Parliament which Ireland has so long claimed."

Quoting petition which some two or three hundred Irish officers who had served in the War presented to His Majesty the King "The Home Rule Bill, by virtue of the Royal Assent, became the formal sovereign legislative Act of the Three Estates of the Realm. Thus was a great pact of international appeasement ratified. Thereupon, and as the first fruits of her new rights and obligations, Ireland rallied to the cause of the British Empire of which she had become at least an enfranchised and self-respecting 947 national unit. By 'a free gift of a free people,' as the Prime Minister of England then described it, she sent an abundance of her sons, for whom we speak, to bear arms against the common foe."

If the right hon. Gentleman argues, great good would accrue from bringing Irishmen of opposite political views into one Council, there commonly to discharge duties relating to their country, why not begin by putting them in one Parliament?

Two Parliaments, in the judgment of those for whom I speak, would inevitably create rival and separate interests, delaying rather than hastening the period, which I think most hon. Members in this House desire, when there shall be one Parliament speaking for one united Ireland.

I doubt whether it can be shown that, in order to reconcile internal differences within the borders of any country, he thought fit to compel the residents of that country to accept not one, but two, separate and rival parliaments.

I do not think Ulster Members themselves would openly and officially claim that they, more than their countrymen, have a right to resist the law, have a right to be placed in a privileged position and not to be expected to conform to the law if it is the law.

This tender consideration for Ulster has gone far gravely to confuse these issues and to increase the difficulties of the men who have been at the head of our successive Governments, and this attempt now to reconcile Ulster probably will fail, as the other appeals to its observance of the law and to its loyalty to this Parliament have previously failed.

[The Bill] it provides a form of partition founded on a religious basis and recognises neither the historic unity of the province of Ulster nor of Ireland as a whole. It gives to Ulster complete control over the fortunes of the rest of Ireland by giving to the Ulster Parliament the right to veto on the assumption of any powers by the Central Irish Council.

vested interests would be created which would be more difficult to remove in the future than it is difficult to remove them now. The Bill concedes to a minority of the country the selection of the form of Government which it denies to a majority.

[W]what is to be said of that minority of Catholics who exist in the six counties? Are you, on the assumption of this being a wise and just settlement, to place the minority of Catholics in the six Protestant counties in the keeping of their Protestant fellow-countrymen on conditions that would leave them in a state of permanent minority and helplessness so far as the work of the Northern Parliament was concerned? And if you turn to the Protestants in the South, what is their position?

There should be conceded to Ireland the maximum of national self-government compatible with the unity of the Empire and the safety of the United Kingdom in time of war; the fullest financial and economic liberty, subject to an annual contribution towards the cost of expenditure which is common to us all, and which, by the way, I think some of the more remote outposts of Empire have not fully met in past years. There should be adequate protection for the Ulster people from any sense of danger to their life, their property, or their faith. There should be the recognition of Ireland's rights to discuss and decide in one elective assembly her own constitution and her own financial arrangements. These conditions, with all the terms which have ever been made on the faith of a Home Rule demand, would literally amount to self-determination, limited only 952 by the requirements of Imperial unity and defence, and would ensure fulfilment even of the British pledges to Ulster. Upon these lines we believe Irish unity can be secured.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1920/mar/29/government-of-ireland-bill-1#S5CV0127P0_19200329_HOC_332

IRL and Commonwealth
Apparently, then, as a result of all that we had reached the point where everybody said we were not a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. That is the answer to those who are asking us why we are leaving the Commonwealth of Nations. We are not leaving it because we left it long ago. In my view we left it in 1936. These remarks that I have quoted here from various debates are available in the Official Debates and anybody can make up his own mind on that. It is fundamental for those people who are asking that question to consider at least that there is doubt and confusion and that different points of view are held from time to time on that particular and perhaps very vital question. Was that a link with the Crown? Again, those who say that we, by this Bill, are cutting the last link with the Crown—what sort of a link was it? You can make up your mind on that. A link made by a rubber stamp; a link that was regarded by us in this country as confined to limited purposes. However, what was it regarded as outside? My experience has reinforced the view that I have always held, that the British and other foreign countries did not enter into our constitutional subtleties at all but shrugged their shoulders and said: “Oh, the King is there. We are not going to find out or consider how far he is there or what he is there for” and he was regarded as being there all the time. If those were the only reasons which impelled us to bring in this measure they would be cogent and conclusive reasons but they are not merely the only reasons, they are not even the principal reasons why this Bill [377] has been brought in. Those reasons for the repeal of that measure have existed for some years. Costello in 1948 debates.

13 Mar 2014 : Column 183WH, Westminster Hall, Thursday 13 March 2014 [Hugh Bayley in the Chair] (Commonwealth Day):

Let me give an example of how things are going so badly wrong. The British Council has published a superb booklet entitled “British Council’s Programme for Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.” ...[I] saw the map of the Commonwealth. Sadly, Gibraltar looks as if it is part of the Kingdom of Spain; it is not really highlighted at all and looks as if it is part of Spain.

There is another issue I wish to draw to the attention of the House today. There is one huge gap in the Commonwealth today. We are more connected to the Republic of Ireland than to any other country in the world and yet the Republic of Ireland is, sadly, no longer part of the Commonwealth family. It is time that we said to our friends, our cousins and our extended family in Ireland that they, too, should join the Commonwealth and come home to the family of Commonwealth nations. It was the people of Ireland, together with the people of England, Scotland and Wales, who built the Commonwealth—the original British Empire that evolved into a Commonwealth of nations. I believe that the people of Ireland belong in the Commonwealth.

The other evening, I was very pleased to welcome the Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, to Parliament. He was at a St Patrick’s day reception on the Terrace of the House of Commons, and I had the opportunity to speak to him briefly about the importance of Ireland and why it was important that it joined the Commonwealth. He was receptive to that possibility when I spoke to him. In his speech at that reception, he also commended Irish citizens who had served in the British armed forces, and I also pay tribute today to those who, despite being citizens of Ireland, died in the British armed forces. There are still many Irish citizens in the British armed forces.

Ireland belongs as part of the Commonwealth family, and I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do everything they can to work with the Taoiseach and those in Ireland who share this vision to bring Ireland closer to the Commonwealth and give its people the opportunity to be part of this great family. We are all part of the British isles; we share that common heritage, language and history. Together we built the Commonwealth, and I hope that the people of the wonderful country of Ireland will join with us as part of the Commonwealth. As we approach St Patrick’s day next Monday, which also happens to be my birthday, I look forward to the day that we can celebrate Ireland coming back within the family of Commonwealth nations.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140313/halltext/140313h0001.htm

Written question - 216967 Q Asked by Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson(Lagan Valley)[N] Asked on: 03 December 2014 Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeRepublic of Ireland216967 To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Irish government about the Republic of Ireland re-joining the Commonwealth. A Answered by: Mr David Lidington Answered on: 08 December 2014 The Republic of Ireland’s interest in rejoining the Commonwealth is a matter for the Irish Government and the wider Commonwealth membership. The UK Government has had no discussions with the Irish Government on this issue.

Mr. Simpson: There are two aspects to consider. The recruitment of Commonwealth citizens to the British armed forces is a necessity, and there is no doubt about that. At the moment, we cannot recruit into the British armed forces, and particularly into the Army, enough people to meet our combat requirements. I agree that Commonwealth men and women undoubtedly make a contribution to the British armed forces and take that contribution back to their country. When I was an instructor at Sandhurst, I experienced the contribution that Commonwealth personnel made there and at our other training establishments. That is not to resile from the fact that we face a manpower problem, to put it crudely.

20 Mar 2008 : Column 1104 The Commonwealth covers a quarter of the habitable surface of the Earth and accounts for 30 per cent. of its population. The population of the enlarged EU is about 497 million; the population of the Commonwealth is 2 billion. Members of the Commonwealth do not just speak the same language—English—but share a language of institutions, Parliaments, and legal and educational systems, a point made forcibly by the last Commonwealth secretary-general. As the Minister has said, the Commonwealth is still expanding and developing. There have been five new members since 1990, and others want to join, including Yemen, Algeria and Rwanda.

When looking back over the history of the Commonwealth, I came across two or three small historical facts, and being an old historian—or at least a long-in-the-tooth historian—I thought that I would lay them before the House. First, Ireland was, of course, a member of the Commonwealth until it became a republic in 1949. Although I can understand the sensitivities of the Irish as regards Great Britain, the monarchy and so on, it is open to the people and Government of Ireland to become members of the Commonwealth. Many hon. Members would regard such an application, if Ireland desired to make one, with a great deal of warmth. The Republic of Ireland would contribute massively to the Commonwealth.

Mr. Simpson: It is obviously a two-way process, and I am sensitive to Irish public opinion, but I am sure that the Minister will take that point on board. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) have said, we should recognise the tens of thousands of Irish citizens who serve in the British armed forces, and we should recognise that Irish citizens made an important contribution in both world wars to defending democracy and developing the Commonwealth.

xxx

24 July 2007 : Column 238WH Ireland and the Commonwealth

1.30 pm

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I am pleased to initiate this debate on Ireland’s membership of the Commonwealth—a business that stands deferred since April 1949. As I hope to demonstrate in the next few minutes, ministerial responsibility has been involved.

[I]n my mind’s eye, each time there is a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, or CHOGM, there is an empty chair, in front of which is a notice bearing the words “Republic of Ireland”. Why do I use the empty-chair analogy? To me, an empty chair indicates the temporary absence of an occupant who will return, or that the attendance of the person for whom the chair is designated has been delayed.

I use the analogy because historians, both in the Republic of Ireland and here, say—erroneously, in my view—that Ireland left the Commonwealth when Taoiseach John Costello decided in August 1948 to repeal the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936 and inaugurate the Republic of Ireland on Easter Monday 1949.

24 July 2007 : Column 238WH—continued

However, I think that the historians are wrong: at that time, the Commonwealth, to the extent that it existed, was nothing like the Commonwealth of today. Its only sovereign, independent states in April 1949 were Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, apart from Ireland. The Commonwealth of the time bore no relationship to that of today. There is also the backdrop: at the time, all but Eire had been involved in 24 July 2007 : Column 239WH what was then the recent second world war. Relations between not only Ireland and the United Kingdom, but those other states were still somewhat fraught—something epitomised by the exchanges of Winston Churchill and Eamon De Valera in their two great broadcasts of May 1945.

...At the time, the British Government could not get their heads around the idea that a state could be associated with those other states, with their historic ties and traditions, and yet be a republic. Valera’s document No. 2 in the treaty negotiations of 1921 was spurned and rejected.

However, it came alive again five days after the Republic of Ireland was inaugurated by Taoiseach Costello in April 1949, because on 22, 25 and 26 April that year, the Prime Ministers of the remaining countries of what was then called the Commonwealth agreed that in 1950 Pandit Nehru could bring his newly independent India into the Commonwealth as its first republic.

..As I said, the formula extended to Pandit Nehru was unfortunately not extended to, offered to or taken up by Ireland, although in retrospect it should have been. I do not think that it is too late for that to happen.

The missing element in my view, to our disadvantage, is its lack of membership of the Commonwealth.

I hope and think that one day the natural supply for the role of secretary-general would be professional diplomats from the Irish Republic or even a retired Taoiseach who has done so much to bring peace in our islands and throughout the world.

...I hope that the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might reflect on what I have said and extend invitations to members of the Oireachtas to any of its future conferences.

This case needs to be remedied. I hope that those countries that are not independent sovereign states in the Commonwealth, such as our friends in the Isle of Man, might discuss the matter in their legislatures. At least they can use their good offices to invite, particularly the Isle of Man, which shares the Celtic, Viking heritage of the Republic of Ireland and whose language was rescued by Eamon De Valera in the early 1950s. I hope that everyone will reflect on the point.

This is not the first time that I have raised this point. I raised it with a Minister a long time ago—not this Minister. That Minister was a mediocre one, who pompously said, “It is a matter for the Irish Republic to apply.” That made me very cross, and still does today. I know that we will get a different response, however. One of the things that all organisations do—it does not matter if they are the Boy Scouts, the Townswomen’s Guilds, the Reform Club or a workingmen’s club—is to extend invitations to people who they think can contribute and whose presence would be valuable. They do it as a way of extending to those people their respect for them. That is why I think that an invitation should be extended to the Irish Republic.

There might be a residual one or two people who do not think that such an invitation ought not to come from the United Kingdom. So be it. Let this Minister say that he will work with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Caribbean countries and the countries around the world to see whether they should take the initiative of inviting the Irish Republic to take its natural place in the Commonwealth of nations.

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Jim Murphy):

I offer my next observation with a sense of great trepidation. My notes say that I should say, first of all, that it is of course for the Government of Ireland to decide whether or not they wish to join the Commonwealth. That was a prophetically drafted first sentence. However, perhaps I could add an additional comfort for my hon. Friend that although it is not for the UK to invite a new member to the Commonwealth, as he implicitly acknowledged when he said that at one time it was Britain’s Commonwealth but that it is now a collection of states that share a common sense of values, the Prime Minister will discuss possible new membership criteria for the Commonwealth with his fellow heads of Government at the next CHOGM. That might offer some hope to my hon. Friend, although I understand that it does not capture the kind of thing that he is talking about. It is largely about whether there is consensus on the sort of membership criteria that allow countries without a constitutional link, such as Rwanda and others, to apply to join the Commonwealth.

My hon. Friend is right that there was a degree of excitement and speculation about possible Irish membership of the Commonwealth after the recent visit by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not know whether the Irish Government intend to join the Commonwealth, or even whether they are considering that step. Nothing that I have seen or read suggests that to be the case.

As he said, Ireland left the Commonwealth in the 1940s because it wanted to make a decisive break with Britain’s colonial past. India faced a similar choice but took an entirely different route. As a result, the modern Commonwealth was born. The UK understands the motivations of both countries in taking those decisions, but, now as then, they must themselves decide on their relationships with the Commonwealth. I hope today to show that, since that decision to leave in the 1940s, 24 July 2007 : Column 243WH Ireland, the Commonwealth and the UK’s relationship with both have evolved and improved.

The Commonwealth would find the Ireland of today not just prosperous but booming, with an economy and a culture that is the envy of many. That is clear to any of us who visit Ireland on official visits, although I have not had the opportunity to do so recently, or who go to Donegal, as many of us do and as I do in my annual holiday. Over the years, the transformation of that part of Ireland has been remarkable and is emblematic of the transformation that continues across Ireland.

Equally Ireland, in its assessment of the Commonwealth, would share my hon. Friend’s perception that it has changed unrecognisably. It has come of age based on values, not on some historical relationship. Ireland would be unlikely to see any traces of colonialism and would instead see a modern, vibrant and international organisation, as he eloquently said.

... We have a unique relationship with Ireland, based on our shared history. Were it to happen, Irish membership of the Commonwealth would provide a new context for that relationship.

Andrew Mackinlay: I assume that the answer to this question will be “yes”. Would my hon. Friend the Minister welcome Ireland’s interest in returning to the Commonwealth, or taking up its seat in the Commonwealth, as I do not actually accept that it left?

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend successfully had a guess at my response. If Ireland were to choose to apply to join the Commonwealth, it would have much to contribute in the ways that he has said: its skill and expertise in diplomatic arenas and the way in which it is outward-facing and has so much to contribute, as it has shown over many years. I know that he would expect me to add the comment that it is not for the UK to initiate an application, it is for Ireland itself to come to a decision if it chooses to do so.

Andrew Mackinlay: I am sorry to be a nuisance, but I said that I hoped my hon. Friend would discuss the matter with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other players in the Commonwealth, because it might be appropriate for them to take the initiative.

Mr. Murphy: ...But in trying to offer him hope on that specific point I say to him that, if Ireland were to make an application, we would of course enter into discussions and debate about specifics, timings and so on. ...If Ireland decided to join the Commonwealth, it would find a forum to discuss and pursue issues of international development, trade and climate change without the traditional north-south fault lines that have characterised so many conversations in the past. Ireland would have an enormous amount to contribute to those conversations.

...It is in Ireland that any application to join the Commonwealth must originate.

xxx 24 Mar 2015 : Column 411WH

Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that now, or some time in the very near future, might be an appropriate time for the Irish Republic to consider returning to the Commonwealth? That might even offer the opportunity of a combined bid, between Northern Ireland and the Republic, for a future Commonwealth games.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: I do not necessarily want to cause diplomatic concern by talking about the possibility of the Republic wishing to return to the Commonwealth, but I have raised that matter during my chairmanship with the Speaker of the Dáil. It seems to me to be a natural thing to do, but it is up to the people of the Republic to decide. They would be very welcome and they would seem natural partners among the 53 nations that are part of the Commonwealth

-Commonwealth Day - Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) mentioned that the Republic of Ireland will, hopefully, join the Commonwealth. That is an aspiration, a wish and a hope. It would be good if it happened.

xxx Revised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence Inquiry on SOFT POWER AND THE UK’S INFLUENCE Evidence Session No. 21 Heard in Public Questions 343 - 357 MONDAY 16 DECEMBER 2013 Witness: Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH

The Chairman: When you were in Dublin the other day, did you get any sense that the Republic of Ireland might wish to join the Commonwealth? Sir John Major: We did not discuss that, and I did not think it was a matter that I should raise. I simply observed, though, that our trading relationship with Ireland is significantly greater than that with China and India added together.

xxx Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth 30 Jun 2011 : Column 1861 Question - Asked By Lord Rana

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the recent visit by Her Majesty the Queen to the Republic of Ireland, what plans they have to encourage the Republic to rejoin the Commonwealth.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, the Republic of Ireland's interest in rejoining the Commonwealth is a matter for the Irish Government and, of course, for the existing Commonwealth membership.

Lord Rana: I thank the Minister for that Answer. May I take this opportunity of congratulating Her Majesty and the President of Ireland on a very successful royal visit to the Republic of Ireland? In the light of this outstanding success, do the Government agree that it is important to build on the results of the visit in a constructive way so as further to improve relations within these islands and between the two parts of Ireland? In particular, do the Government agree that if Ireland, as an independent republic, was to rejoin the Commonwealth, or have a new association with the Commonwealth, this would be calculated to be of benefit to Ireland, and more particularly greatly improve relations between the divided communities in Ireland?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I agree 100 per cent with the noble Lord's remarks about the enormously successful state visit, which has no doubt struck a very positive chord and gives great hope to all of us who are familiar with and wish to see ameliorated and put in the past the great problems of Ireland of the past few hundred years. The noble Lord is absolutely on the right track there. However, I have to reiterate that the initiative on which he is questioning me-membership of the Commonwealth-really is a matter for the Irish Government to look at. In many other areas I suspect that the state visit has provided an impetus and a momentum on both sides of the water for new initiatives to bring the Republic of Ireland and all aspects of the United Kingdom still closer together. They are our good friends and we are theirs.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have never been better, that Ireland is our closest trading partner and that the contribution made by Irish people, and people of Irish origin, has been of great benefit to this country and is something to be celebrated?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes, I certainly confirm that absolutely.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that during the peace process I approached the leaders of all the political parties in the Republic of Ireland, all of whom said the same thing-that an application from Ireland to rejoin the Commonwealth was unlikely but that if unionists were to request it as part of the peace process it would undoubtedly be deliverable? The unionist parties did not request it so that moment has passed. However, it seems to me that perhaps an application will only follow invitations. Will my noble friend undertake to explore with the Secretary-General and other members of the Commonwealth whether the Irish Republic might be invited as a guest to Commonwealth events, perhaps even the Commonwealth Games, to help move us in a direction whereby it would not have to make an application but would nevertheless be welcomed in?

Lord Howell of Guildford: This is one of the very interesting and exciting approaches that now become possible as our relations have kept improving to their present excellent level. I cannot make any precise promises because, as I said at the beginning, we must expect the signs to come from the Irish Government that that is the way forward, but there is no reason why the Commonwealth Secretariat should not invite any country, including the Republic of Ireland, to be aware of the vast variety of Commonwealth developments, associations and branded activities throughout the globe in which Ireland or any other country may be interested.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the peoples in both countries in the island of Ireland-in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland-rejoice at the success of the state visit by Her Majesty the Queen to the Republic of Ireland? Secondly, does he accept that, in the case of Mozambique or, more recently, Southern Sudan, a decision to join the Commonwealth was left to the peoples of those countries, not through any encouragement from the United Kingdom? I speak from long experience of politics in Northern Ireland and relations with the Republic of Ireland. Does the Minister accept that any encouragement from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland to join the Commonwealth would be counterproductive?

Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Lord speaks with much wisdom and experience on these matters. I hope that something of what he said was reflected in my initial comment that any move of this kind must come from the Irish Government and the Irish people in the first instance.

xxxx

Andrew Rosindell: I would love to see the day when we could bring the Republic of Ireland into the Commonwealth of nations...I would love to see the Irish Republic take its place alongside the rest of us in the Commonwealth of nations.

Although I had not considered the point, my hon. Friend is correct to mention the United States of America. Why should it not have the opportunity to become part of the Commonwealth? That is a wonderful idea and I would certainly support that 20 Mar 2008 : Column 1153 proposal.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): ...but the great country of Ireland was one of the members of the original organisation and many Irish statesman contributed to what is now our modern Commonwealth.

... The reply from successive Governments to my parliamentary 20 Mar 2008 : Column 1155 questions has been that it is for Ireland to apply. That is disingenuous; it is not fraternal. We should tell Ireland that we want it to occupy the chair that it vacated. The best way to achieve that would be for the Prime Ministers of some of the big players, such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Jamaica, to take the initiative with the Taoiseach. They should say, “This is no longer the British Commonwealth. Of course, its genesis is in our common history, but now it is a mutual society of nations owned by Australia, Jamaica, South Africa and many other African states, the Republic of India and the Republic of Pakistan, when its suspension is over. It is ours, why don’t you join us?”

Why do I want Ireland in the Commonwealth? The Irish Republic has a proud record of internationalism. It is one of the first countries the UN Secretary-General calls on for quality peacekeeping troops. They have no imperial baggage, and he can rely on them. The Irish punch above their numerical weight in the European Union, where they are highly regarded. Ireland will probably provide the first president of the European Union—perhaps to the disappointment of some people in London.

Ireland is a big player, but the one international organisation in which it does not participate is the Commonwealth. We have discussed the structures of the Commonwealth, but I would like to see an Irish team at the Commonwealth games, which is a rich festival of sport and, after the Olympics, one of the most important international sporting events.

Irish membership of the Commonwealth would be a small but not insignificant factor in the positive developments in the island of Ireland over the past 12 months. It would be a further contributory factor to cover differences in traditions that have caused aggravation, but in which people also find their common identity. A small number of people in the Irish Republic identify with UK Britishness, which they cannot currently express. When I raised the subject in a Westminster Hall debate, I received letters from people in the Irish Republic who cannot have read my contribution, because they believe that the Commonwealth is the British Commonwealth. If anyone reading Hansard should trespass on my remarks today, I emphasise the point that the Commonwealth is not the British Commonwealth; it is owned by all the other states, the majority of which are republics.

We should take the initiative at CHOGM and discuss with other members whether Ireland’s chair, which has been vacant since 1948, could be occupied once more. Actually, I do not think that Ireland left; it has been left in a sort of halfway house, because when the Costello Government declared the Irish Republic in 1948-49, this House enacted legislation that said that all citizens of the Irish Republic had citizenship rights equal to those of people from the United Kingdom, could stand for election to local authorities and to Parliament, and could take ministerial office. A number of people who identified themselves as Irish have served in that capacity in this place. That was the precursor to the concept of Irish people being Commonwealth citizens, because the concept did not exist at that stage.

Our franchise is extended to United Kingdom people, citizens of the Irish Republic and Commonwealth citizens, who have the full franchise here and can be elected to the House—I believe that Commonwealth citizens have been Ministers. I urge the Minister to go back to the 20 Mar 2008 : Column 1156 Foreign and Commonwealth Office and ask for a proper brief. If she were to ask, “Is anything in the historical record that Mackinlay outlined incorrect?” the answer would be no—what I have said is absolutely correct, because I have spent some time studying the subject. I think that she will conclude that it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to discuss the issue with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Heads of Government to see whether the situation can be remedied.

"Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): Given today’s visit, can the Minister confirm whether he has had any meetings with the Republic of Ireland’s Foreign Minister about its entering the British Commonwealth?

Mr Lidington: Not to my knowledge. We take the view that this is a matter for the Government of Ireland. Clearly, there are strong bonds of friendship and history between the two countries, but it has to be a matter for the Irish people and the Irish Government to decide about any relationship with the Commonwealth." 8 Apr 2014 : Column 105

1948 London Olympics
http://www.totalpolitics.com/history/203762/the-1948-london-olympics.thtml by Janie Hampton / 15 Aug 2011

Ireland had last competed in 1932 in Los Angeles, and now sent a team to London of over 100 competitors and officials. The British organisers, noting that some of the Irish entries were born in Northern Ireland, declared they could only compete for Great Britain. JF Chisholm, the team manager, pointed out that under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1937, if they wished to be, any citizens of Northern Ireland were also citizens of The Irish Free State. The International Rowing Federation had already accepted a rower from Belfast for the Irish rowing team. Boxer Ken Martin, a native of Northern Ireland, was competing for Ireland, whereas two swimmers had been barred.

Chisholm, normally a quiet man, was enraged when the reasons for disallowing the Irish swimmers suddenly changed from their place of birth (Northern Ireland) to their voting eligibility. He pointed out that if this new rule was applied, then no one under 21 years could take part in the Olympics. Dozens of letters flew back and forth, but neither side wanted to give way.

The IOC remained ‘unpolitical’, and agreed with the British that Ireland should be called Eire, even though its official language was English. “The name of the state is EIRE, or in the English language, IRELAND,” wrote Chisholm to them. “Spain is not called España. I strongly protest against the action of the president of the IOC [Brundage] in refusing to carry out the Olympic Rules in regard to the appellation of countries, which states that they must be in either English, French or Spanish. He insists on calling us EIRE, which is the Gaelic title for Ireland.”

There was not enough money to buy Olympic uniforms for the whole Irish team, so only their boxers, fencers and rowers were able to take part in the Opening Ceremony. Outside Wembley Stadium, Chisholm insisted that his team “from Ireland would march between Iraq and Italy, and not between Egypt and Finland as ‘Eire’”.

He continued: “The staff officer stated that if we persisted, we would not be allowed in the parade and I enquired, who would stop us? He got somewhat nonplussed and remarked, that it looked as if this affair would develop into an international incident. I told him I did not want any kind of incident, only our rightful place in the parade according to the rules laid down by them. Colonel Johnstone, the Chief Marshall, said that the people of England knew us as ‘Eire’, and he always addressed his letters to his brother-in-law over there to Eire. He then informed me that if we persisted with this attitude, we would be stopped at the tunnel.” Chisholm backed down, and his team marched in behind a Boy Scout carrying the sign in Gaelic.

Chisholm’s determination was later redeemed at a Buckingham Palace reception. The national teams were arranged in the ante-room in alphabetical order, with the Irish team once again behind Egypt. But as they approached the Throne Room, the King’s Equerry asked how they would like to be announced? “Ireland,” said Chisholm firmly. The King did not seem to mind, but later Lord Burghley wrote to complain that under The Eire Confirmation of Agreement Act, 1938, the former Irish Free State was called Eire. He thought the matter would rest there. The row continued until 1949 when the Republic of Ireland was declared, and the IOC finally agreed that Ireland was the correct name.

As an ironic footnote to history, however, at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, the British were in charge of the loudspeakers and still called it Eire.

Janie Hampton is the author of The Olympics in London 1948 and The Austerity Olympics: When the Games Came to London in 1948

Persia
Certainly we must have regard to the fact that this is a good and useful working rule in international relations. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames gave us an example about Iran. I think that proves our case. We used to call it Persia. We 173 changed to Iran because they asked us to do so, and we changed back again because we understood that they did not mind. As they now very much like to refer to themselves as "Persians," I understand that that is why it is done. -The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)

Northern Ireland "opts out"
The Anglo Irish Treaty contemplated that Northern Ireland would have a period of one month, commonly referred to as the ‘Ulster month’, during which the Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland could take a decision about whether Northern Ireland would form part of the United Kingdom or the Irish Free State. The ‘Ulster month’ began following the passing of the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act 1922 on 5 December 1922. On 6 December 1922 the Irish Free State came into existence by royal proclamation.

Realistically it was always certain that Northern Ireland would choose a future within the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, speaking in the Parliament in October 1922 said that "when 6 December is passed the month begins in which we will have to make the choice either to vote out or remain within the Free State". He said it was important that that choice be made as soon as possible after 6 December 1922 "in order that it may not go forth to the world that we had the slightest hesitation". On the following day, 7 December 1922, the Parliament resolved to make the following address to the King so as to opt out of the Irish Free State:

"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senators and Commons of Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, having learnt of the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, being the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, do, by this humble Address, pray your Majesty that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland."

Discussion in the Parliament of the address was short. Prime Minister Craig left for London with the memorial embodying the address on the night boat that evening, 7 December 1922. The King received it the following day, The Times reporting:

"YORK COTTAGE, SANDRINGHAM, DEC. 8. The Earl of Cromer (Lord Chamberlain) was received in audience by The King this evening and presented an Address from the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland, to which His Majesty was graciously pleased to make reply."

On 13 December 1922 Prime Minister Craig addressed the Parliament informing them that the King had responded to its address as follows:

"I have received the Address presented to me by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in pursuance of Article 12 of the Articles of Agreement set forth in the Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and of Section 5 of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, and I have caused my Ministers and the Irish Free State Government to be so informed."

Northern Ireland’s constitutional position on 6 December 1922 was discussed in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary in 1949. He reported that:

"The important date to bear in mind there is 6th December, 1922, for that was the date...the Irish Free State was constituted, and as constituted on 6th December, 1922, it consisted of the 32 counties with the six counties which now form Northern Ireland having the right to vote themselves out. They did so vote themselves out on 7th December, but on 6th December, 1922, the whole of Ireland, the 32 counties, was the Irish Free State and it was not until 7th December, the next day, the six counties having voted themselves out, that the Irish Free State became confined to the 26 counties."

On the other hand, a British lawyer who has written on the topic argues that while the Treaty, and the legislation introduced to give it legal effect, implied that Northern Ireland would be a part of the Free State on its creation, 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.

Prior opt out
For about two days from 6 December 1922 Northern Ireland became part of the newly created Irish Free State. This constitutional episode arose because of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the legislation introduced to give that Treaty legal effect.

The Treaty was given legal effect in the United Kingdom through the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922. That Act established, on 6 December 1922, the new Dominion for the whole island of Ireland. Legally therefore, on 6 December 1922, Northern Ireland became an autonomous region of the newly created Irish Free State. However, the Treaty and the laws which implemented it also allowed Northern Ireland to "opt out" of the Irish Free State. Under Article 12 of the Treaty, Northern Ireland could exercise its opt out by presenting an address to the King requesting not to be part of the Irish Free State. Once the Treaty was ratified, the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland had one month (dubbed the "Ulster month") to exercise this opt out during which month the Irish Free State Government could not legislate for Northern Ireland, holding the Free State's effective jurisdiction in abeyance for a month.

Realistically, it was always certain that Northern Ireland would opt out of the Free State. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Sir James Craig, speaking in the Parliament in October 1922 said that "when 6 December is passed the month begins in which we will have to make the choice either to vote out or remain within the Free State". He said it was important that that choice be made as soon as possible after 6 December 1922 "in order that it may not go forth to the world that we had the slightest hesitation". On 7 December 1922 (the day after the establishment of the Irish Free State) the Parliament demonstrated its lack of hesitation by resolving to make the following address to the King so as to opt out of the Irish Free State:

"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Senators and Commons of Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, having learnt of the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, being the Act of Parliament for the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, do, by this humble Address, pray your Majesty that the powers of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland."

Discussion in the Parliament of the address was short. Prime Minister Craig left for London with the memorial embodying the address on the night boat that evening, 7 December 1922. The King received it the following day, The Times reporting:

"YORK COTTAGE, SANDRINGHAM, DEC. 8. The Earl of Cromer (Lord Chamberlain) was received in audience by The King this evening and presented an Address from the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland, to which His Majesty was graciously pleased to make reply."

With this, Northern Ireland had left the Irish Free State. If the Houses of 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.

On 13 December 1922 Prime Minister Craig addressed the Parliament informing them that the King had responded to the Parliament's address as follows:

"I have received the Address presented to me by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in pursuance of Article 12 of the Articles of Agreement set forth in the Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and of Section 5 of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, and I have caused my Ministers and the Irish Free State Government to be so informed."