The Boundary Commission, what could have been?

RahenyFG

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,094
The Boundary Commission had the biggest potential to undermine the existence of Northern Ireland since it was set up, yet failed spectacularly. If McNeill attended more frequently or if the report wasn't leaked, surely the then Cumann na Gaedhael government in the 1920s could have got much more out of the Boundary Commission then the possibility of losing more land to the north than they were to receive. The north would be much smaller and it's ability to function undermined and therefore forced to reunite with the Irish Free State, hence a United Ireland.
 


SlickWilly

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
500
There was talk of getting Derry city, South Down, parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh back, so the Northern Statelette would become an economic entity. The Jaffas while happy to let the free 3 go originally, could not accept more dilution, so the Brits would never let it happen. Maybe we dodged a bullet or two ourselves alone!
 

RahenyFG

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,094
The very fact that Tyrone and Fermanagh, then and even now, had narrow nationalist majorities meant those counties or some part of them should have been transferred to the Irish Free State. Also Derry City, with nationalists at 80% to 90% in that city. Plus parts of South Down and South Armagh.

From the free state side, there was talk about parts of Donegal and Monaghan with protestant towns near the border to be handed over to the six counties.

It would have been good for the Free State also as they a net gain of land.
 

MuchToDo

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
276
Look, if NI had become just four counties (roughly) or what have you, it would have been resolutely Unionist and would have had the more viable parts of NI anyway (as much as any of it was/is).

All "getting more" from the boundary commission would have done was absolutely definitively cemented Northern Ireland as a Unionist mini-State for all time.

Whereas with what happened, it is at the very least no longer a Unionist mini-State. Depending on the future of the North, the Republic and the Union, is not necessarily going to remain in a United Kingdom either.

Besides, the biggest factor in NI's early Unionist existence was the populist Republican traitors who felt we could have it all and tore our early state apart while Unionists in NI were able to work unhindered by southern interference. The descendents of those "idealists" are still trying to destroy the Irish state today in their efforts to act like spoilt children and allow a section of the population to act like spoilt children.

Far too many people in this Republic of ours still don't like the truth that they can't just have it all. Their parents have in many cases literally avoided saying "no, you can't have any more sweeties" (or junk food in general) when they were kids. Another symptom was in the boom where people continued to drink as much as they had money to spend on it! Rather disasterous when people had more money!

Republicans and a whole section of the population here need to grow up and face reality.
 

Balatro

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
113
The British government obviously had the might to dictate its territorial claims. A discussion on alternate timeline boundary scenarios (e.g., such as would include British respect for the right of local populations to live under the government of their preference) would therefore be “a road to nowhere.”

The common assumption that the conflict was the inevitable result of partition is fallacious. In fact, conflict was inherent to incorrect partition (i.e., a badly drawn border). On the contrary, there is no evidence that institutionalized sectarianism and paranoia would’ve been politically sustainable in a much more homogeneous Northern Ireland.

The south’s territorial claim likely would’ve declined into complete obscurity, given the near-absence of nationalists in the northern state. That development would have encouraged further political stability in the northern state.

The British were perfectly capable of supporting a smaller Northern Ireland. (Was the border of actual history therefore an exercise in survival or territorial aggrandizement?) Even if, however, that Northern Ireland had proven to be unsustainable, the demands for unification would instead have emanated from a willing Protestant population. That would’ve been a very different political environment from the Orange-dominated political environment of this timeline.
 
Last edited:

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,658
Coulda woulda shoulda.

This state had the wherewithal to protect northern nationalists rights to some extent, and ensure they were kept connected to the rest of the nation. Instead the 26 county nationalists in Fine Gael and their fellow travellers tried to cut northern nationalists adrift and exclude them as much as possible.

D
 

Stephen Ferguson

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
140
The north would be much smaller and it's ability to function undermined and therefore forced to reunite with the Irish Free State, hence a United Ireland.
Why would it not have been a viable state?

It would have had a population of around 800,000.

These countries all function with lower/similar populations than that:

Fiji
Bahrain
Cyprus
Guyana
Bhutan
Equitorial Guinea
Comoros
Solomon Islands
Suriname
Cape Verde
Luxembourg
Malta
Brunei
Bahamas
Belize
Iceland
Maldives
Barbados
Vanuata
Samoa
Saint Lucia
Tonga
Granada
Seychelles
Andorra
Leichtenstein
Monaco
San Marino
Tuvalu

And these countries all survive with a lower land mass than a smaller Northern Ireland would have had:

Jamaica
Lebanon
Cyprus
Puerto Rico
Brunei
Trinidad & Tobago
Cape Verde
Samoa
Luxembourg
Comoros
Mauritius
Hong Kong
Bahrain
Dominica
Tonga
Kiribati
Singapore
St Lucia
Andorra
Palau
Seychelles
Barbados
Grenada
Malta
Maldives
St Kitts
Leichtenstein
San Marino
Tuvalu

Your argument is not valid.
 

Keith-M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
15,668
Website
www.allkindsofeverything.ie
It would have made little difference that to make the Unioniost majority in Northern Ireland more secure and the reduce thye number of unionists in this country (by removing parts of Weast Donegal and Monaghan).

At the end of the day the border is secure and it will be there long after everyone on p.ie is six feet under. I don't believe we'll see re-partition because it really suits no one and the border has been a great success from the start allowing this country to go its own way without a huge section of the population who were loyal to another country.
 

deirdrem

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
920
More than one nation in England, too, but they have a single government looking after the place.
We should try that here, too.
It's going to come about sooner or later, and with the Brits cutting the funding to the 6 counties, huge numbers of unionists will be put out of their PS sinecures, and will emigrate probably to mama england, disturbing the numbers game yet again.
So it won't be long now!!!
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,658
Is this a divided "nation" ? More than one nation on this land mass.
Perhaps. But the fact is that Ireland is a pretty ancient nation. It would be appalling if the last part of Ireland to be conquered by the English was left as the one part still under English control.

D
 

Stephen Ferguson

Active member
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
140
It's going to come about sooner or later, and with the Brits cutting the funding to the 6 counties, huge numbers of unionists will be put out of their PS sinecures, and will emigrate probably to mama england, disturbing the numbers game yet again.
So it won't be long now!!!
have you any idea how long people have been saying that for???

Yet the border is more entrenched and secure now than it's ever been.

What kind of moron would want to take NI out of the UK into a soon-to-be third world country anyway?? Most of NI's Nationalists won't even touch you now after the past fortnight. They know what side their bread is buttered on!

Give it up!!
 

Fenian Óg

Active member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
135
From what I've heard the main offer on the table was East Donegal for South Armagh but the CnaG lads were completely willing to secede any land at all so it was scrapped.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,462
From what I've heard the main offer on the table was East Donegal for South Armagh but the CnaG lads were completely willing to secede any land at all so it was scrapped.
Nah - nobody wants South Armagh ;)

In November 1925 the Morning Post disclosed that the commission would recommend the transfer of South Armagh to the Free State and of part of East Donegal to Northern Ireland, resulting in a net gain of 25,000 Catholics for the South, and 2,000 Protestants for the North. The Cosgrave cabinet preferred no change to the loss of East Donegal (it would probably be too unkind to say, to the gain of South Armagh!). Cosgrave hurried to London where he quickly agreed with Craig and Baldwin to suppress the report, and to accept the status quo. His one gain was to secure waiving of Free State liability for part of the British (national) debt which it had incurred under article 5 of the Treaty. MacNeill felt that he could also probably have secured the waiving of the land annuities had he pushed hard enough for them, and thus deprived de Valera of a lethal electoral weapon in later years. 397


397 N. Mansergh, 'Eoin MacNeill – a reappraisal', Studies, 73 (Summer 1974), p. 140; G.J.Hand, 'MacNeill and the Boundary Commission', in Martin and Byrne (eds.), Scholar Revolutionary, p. 272.
Ireland 1912-1985 J.J.Lee, page 145
 

dublincitizen

Active member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
266
At the end of the day the border is secure and it will be there long after everyone on p.ie is six feet under. I don't believe we'll see re-partition because it really suits no one and the border has been a great success from the start allowing this country to go its own way without a huge section of the population who were loyal to another country.
Partition has been nothing short of a disaster for this island. It has caused conflict while also holding back the economic potential of this country. Remember, partition was imposed on this island by a foreign government, it wasn't wanted by Republicans or Unionists.

Repartition will never happen, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of a United Ireland happening within our lifetime. I'm not saying it will, but given how much has changed in politics on this island, I think you'd be a fool to dismiss it, especially now that the Unionist majority in the North is so slim.
 

beamish2010

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
488
Partition has been nothing short of a disaster for this island. It has caused conflict while also holding back the economic potential of this country. Remember, partition was imposed on this island by a foreign government, it wasn't wanted by Republicans or Unionists.

Repartition will never happen, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of a United Ireland happening within our lifetime. I'm not saying it will, but given how much has changed in politics on this island, I think you'd be a fool to dismiss it, especially now that the Unionist majority is so slim.
A united Ireland?...Here in the South...We do not have a country of of our own anymore...It has been signed away to the EU/IMF by Zanu-FF...I hardly think that the Northerners want to run by the EU and the IMF.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top