
Many Northern nationalists doubt Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael's commitment to Irish unity
Northern nationalists felt betrayed by Dublin 100 years ago, after the collapse of the
Boundary Commission
in December 1925. It left the border with
Northern Ireland
unchanged despite their hopes that it would make unification inevitable. Many of their descendants still feel that way.
Most Irish nationalists believed the commission, set up as part of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, would see much of the territory of the six counties of the Northern Ireland state that was established in May 1921 being transferred to the fledging Irish Free State.
The shifting of Tyrone, Fermanagh, south Armagh, south Down (including Newry) and Derry City with their Catholic majorities to the Free State, it was hoped, would leave the remainder of Northern Ireland an unviable rump. Irish unity would then be inevitable.
Events, however, did not turn out as nationalists hoped, for a catalogue of reasons, including the ambiguous wording of Article 12 in the Treaty that set up the commission and allowed for multiple interpretations.
READ MORE
From the off, the newly-created, inexperienced Free State government was politically and diplomatically outmanoeuvring by both London and the new authorities in Stormont. And, throughout, Northern nationalists were naive.
In the end, the commission ended in rancour when it proposed that only slight rectifications should be made to the original boundary lines drawn up in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, leaving the Border as it was then and remains today.
Even the simple things were not handled properly by the Irish side. The commission was chaired by a British-appointed head, not by an independent chairperson, while there were lengthy delays in setting the body up. Following a largely accurate forecast of the expected final boundary recommendations published by the diehard unionist Morning Post
newspaper on November 7th, 1925,
WT Cosgrave
's Free State government insisted the report as a whole should be shelved.
The newspaper's report had rightly claimed that the commission would propose only minimal transfers from Northern Ireland to the Free State. Crucially, the Free State would lose parts of east Donegal and north Monaghan.
The furore led the commission's Free State representative Eoin MacNeill to resign from the role. Once it was revealed, however, that he had appeared to consent to the changes, or had not substantially objected, he was forced to resign as the Free State's minister for education.
In a panic, Cosgrave rushed over to London to have the Boundary Commission report buried, and after a week of intense negotiations involving the Free State, British and Northern Irish governments, a tripartite agreement was signed on December 3rd, 1925.
Under the agreement, Article 12 of the Treaty, which set up the commission, was revoked and Northern Ireland's boundary remained as it had been defined under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
Meanwhile, Article 5, which had created a £150,000,000 bill that the fledgling State was to pay to London, was waived, with the Free State becoming liable for malicious damage incurred during the War of Independence.
Under the treaty, 40 parliamentarians, 20 each from Stormont and Dublin, were to have looked after subjects of common concern, including railways, fisheries and contagious diseases of animals. Extra powers could have been added, as required. However, these were scrapped too.
While the Council of Ireland was considered an 'irritant' to the Northern Ireland government, it was the Free State government that readily abandoned it. In lieu of it, the Northern Ireland prime minister James Craig 'suggested joint meetings of the two governments in Ireland 'at an early date' so that both governments could deal with charges brought by one against the other'. Cosgrave agreed but they never met again. In fact, the next meeting between the heads of both Irish governments was 40 years later, when Seán Lemass met Terence O'Neill in 1965.
Instead of engaging with Ulster unionists with a view to ending or limiting partition, Irish governments of different hues preferred to preach about its evils without offering anything like practical or tangible policies that could deal with the issue. It was only from the 1960s that Irish governments promoted the merits of North-South bodies, such as the Council of Ireland, as well as bodies that exist today such as the
Shared Island
initiative.
The fallout from the Boundary Commission has left a bitter taste in the mouths of Northern nationalists ever since 1925. Their trust in British governments (always threadbare) evaporated completely, but, perhaps more importantly, their trust in the South suffered an irrevocable blow, due to the Free State government's abandonment of the North for financial benefits. That mistrust still resonates today.
Many Northern nationalists believe there is a partitionist mindset in the South and that the 'establishment' political parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are not interested in Irish unity, despite rhetoric to the contrary. There is contempt for the geo-blocking of programmes in the North by
RTÉ
(particularly sporting ones), the provision of weather information from
Met Éireann
for just the 26 counties, the naming of the 26 county state as Ireland under the Constitution, and the prohibition of citizens in the North from voting in Irish presidential elections.
[
Geography and destiny – Ronan McGreevy on the Boundary Commission
Opens in new window
]
As prospects of a Border poll have entered public discourse since the acceptance of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, focus has shifted to an ambiguous clause in that agreement: Schedule 1 (2), which states that the British secretary of state for Northern Ireland 'shall exercise the power' to call a Border poll 'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland'.
As with the Boundary Commission, many Northern nationalists believe this clause leaves the power in the hands of the British government. Some fear that this could prevent a Border poll from occurring at all. While there appears to be a clear avenue to Irish unity now through the Belfast Agreement, people are still very wary that the way the commission imploded in 1925 could happen again through what they would see as underhand and devious methods over calling a Border poll.
Cormac Moore is a historian, currently serving as historian-in-residence with Dublin City Council.
His latest book, The Root of All Evil, about the Boundary Commission, is published by Irish Academic Press
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Letters to the Editor, June 28th: On lack of action in Brussels, doing the right thing and choice language
Sir, – Your newspaper today (June 27th) provides a stark juxtaposition as to the situation in Gaza, and the hypocrisy of the EU. Your reporters in Brussels set out the lack of action by the EU to sanction Israel for its failure to allow aid into Gaza (' Government briefs 'like-minded' EU states on Occupied Territories Bill '). We see where states who are 'sympathetic' to Israel effectively veto anything more than carefully crafted words, as being the strongest action possible. The hope being that these words will bring the Israeli government to its senses and allow aid, at appropriate levels, to be let into the enclave, and maybe a ceasefire. And as if to show the Israeli government holding two fingers to the EU, your Reuters report sets out how Israel has stopped any aid being allowed into the north of Gaza ('Israel halts aid to northern Gaza as clans deny Hamas is stealing it'). Those strong words from Brussels really hit the mark! READ MORE The hypocrisy of the EU is then laid bare with unanimity easily forthcoming in extending sanctions against Russia for their invasion and ongoing war with Ukraine. While Mr Netanyahu can strong arm those leaders who are 'sympathetic' to Israel, the EU will never take collective action against Israel. It is time for those EU states who are minded to take action against Israel, in the form of concrete sanctions, must do so unilaterally. – Yours, etc, PHILIP BRADY, Donnycarney, Dublin. Sir, – I read with interest Dr Ed Abrahamson's letter (June 26th). His analysis of Ireland's relationship with Israel in light of ongoing events in Gaza and the political discussions of the same in Ireland was revealing. I was particularly interested in his view that the 'deep freeze' he describes between Ireland and Israel may never end. He posits that the fracture in the relationship between the two countries may affect the economy and also gives an example of the welfare of patients in Irish hospitals who may be deprived of medical advances which come from Israel. It is true that the Government and many politicians have spoken out on issues in Gaza and many people in Irish society are very upset and angry about what is unfolding. For many across society, this has meant taking a stand and speaking up for what we consider to be wrong in terms of current events. Surely to be human and to have moral courage and clarity means that taking a stand on any issue should come down to moral considerations alone? The view that being seen as taking a stand against Israel's current actions might affect us in a material way is a factor to be borne in mind, is to totally miss the point and the moral clarity that taking a stand on any issue demands. Moral courage is the willingness to take a potentially costly moral action simply because it is the right thing to do. I learned this lesson very early in childhood when I was visiting Dublin with my parents and ran towards the door of Dunnes Stores on Henry Street and my father gently pulled me back and said 'We are not going in there, never cross a picket, do you hear me now ? never.' He gently explained about South Africa, apartheid and oranges and how these people were doing what was right, even though it would affect them directly in their income. I was fortunate to have such an early lesson and the clarity and admiration with which he spoke about those Dunnes Stores workers has stayed with me as a seminal memory, almost 40 years later. Taking a stand means doing the right thing even if the consequences of that stand affect you directly, the world is often transactional and full of compromise and moral cowardice. Doing the right thing means we abandon such obfuscation and speak with the same clarity and simplicity as though we are speaking to a child, explaining the difference between right and wrong and why doing the right thing matters even if it affects you directly. – Yours, etc, JACKIE GORMAN, Athlone, Co Westmeath. Sir, – Justine Mc Carthy is to be congratulated on her forensic account of how the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, has exceeded her legal mandate and undermined the role of the EU high representative and the rights and responsibilities of individual member states in relation to foreign policy ( 'What gives Ursula von der Leyen the right to egg on Binyamin Netanyahu with his killing crusades ?' June 27th). The big question is what can be done about it? A motion of censure is due to be tabled by a number of MEPs in respect of the 'Pfizergate'controversy. This concerns Ms von der Leyen's professed inability to release copies of texts between her and the Pfizer chief executive officer during the Covid crisis. There are also issues arising in relation to the alleged bypassing of the European Parliament and the increasing centralisation of power in the commission. It is now clear that the Fianna Fáil MEPs who voted against von der Leyen's reappointment were absolutely correct in their judgment. Given the Government's strong position on the recent report on Israel's violations of human rights within the EU trade deal, all our MEPs should now consider supporting this motion and help trigger a substantive and comprehensive debate in the European Parliament on this important issue. – Yours, etc, MARTIN Mc DONALD, Dublin 12. Contactless travel Sir, – Dr Mark Thompson asks why it will take so long to introduce contactless payment on public transport (Letters, June 27th). His question is, however, like the line judges in Wimbledon, redundant (' No line judges at Wimbledon: you cannot be serious ,' June 27th). We don't need contactless payment; we need a simple Berlin-style smart phone ticketing app. Once downloaded you can buy a ticket that lasts for two hours on any form of public transport. You can buy a ticket immediately before you board a bus, tram or train. You don't have to tap machines at stations, on buses or trams. Random inspection polices the time-based system. With a Berlin-style app, payment is easy and foolproof. Unlike the traditional Wimbledon fans upset by the removal of the line judges, the Berlin app does not need to replace the cumbersome existing infrastructure. Better, it does not need the addition of contactless payment which is rapidly becoming a legacy technology. – Yours, etc, SEAN KEAVNEY, Dublin 15. Sir, – Ken Buggy bemoans the delay by the National Transport Authority introducing contactless payment on public transport here (Letters, June 27th). He suggests that if Ryanair were involved it would be in place 'tomorrow' and with 'no shopping bags'. He should be careful what he wishes for; Ryanair might refuse buggys as well. – Yours, etc, PAUL MURPHY, Drumcondra, Dublin 9. Sir, – Dr Marc Thompson rightly takes the Government to task regarding the lack of contactless payment on our public transport system. He wonders why there's no joined-up strategy, and why we can't deliver 'infrastructure at a scale and speed which the citizens deserve'. There can hardly be something called 'joined-up strategy', without joined-up thinking, and, regarding what the citizens deserve, that particular horse has long bolted, and the citizens' expectations do not appear to have any purchase in the minds of those in the corridors of power. – Yours, etc, PETER DECLAN O'HALLORAN, Belturbet, Co Cavan. Remembering Mount Charles Sir, – The sad news of the death of Henry Mount Charles brought to my memory a little incident which showed his wide field of interests and concerns, In the 1990s, the issue of the closure of the Phoenix Park racecourse arose. My sister, May, was very concerned about the closure and started a campaign collecting signatures of protest. Without any contact from my sister, Mount Charles wrote to her offering any help he could give. May was surprised and very pleased to receive such unexpected support. That same day, we read the dreadful news that Mount Charles' beloved Slane Castle was on fire. So he didn't get the wished-for opportunity to record his views on the racecourse closure. A man of many streams. – Yours, etc, EILEEN LYNCH, Dublin. Aesthetics and architecture Sir, - The article (' Cost to take priority over 'aesthetics' in future State infrastructure projects ,' June 27th) could be interpreted as the Government abandoning its national policy on architecture published in 2022. 'Aesthetics' are not something nice to have but an essential component of public buildings and an easy target to blame for high costs. In fact, the architectural and special quality of the children's hospital is one of the few positives that counterbalances negativity around the high cost. The real drivers of cost are not standards and aesthetics but rather the delays in procurement and planning. Each year a ¤1 billion project is delayed adds about ¤70million to the cost and we regularly see these public projects take countless years to go from the start to commencement of construction. We don't need soviet-style grey boxes to put our sick children in. It won't solve the cost-control issue either. – Yours, etc, JOE KENNEDY, FRIAI, Co Dublin. Sir, – It is well established that the long-term consequences of ignoring aesthetics in the construction of major infrastructure, such as hospitals, include reduced usability, lower satisfaction, and higher costs in the long run. At least Jack Chambers' (Minister for Public Expenditure) false dilemma of cost versus aesthetics adds a new entry to the bingo card of construction costs in contemporary Ireland: Beauty! – Yours, etc, DR CONNELL VAUGHAN, Lecturer in Aesthetics, Technical University, Dublin. Shine on Sir – British prime minister Keir Starmer's Irish chief of staff Morgan McSweeney appears to be losing his shine (' Irish fixer under fire as welfare rebellion looms in U K,' June 27th). According to army protocols and even Collins Dictionary, 'polished shoes make its wearer look more presentable and can elevate a person's public standing'. A tin of black should do it then. – Yours, etc, MARION WALSH, Dublin 4. Capping judicial review legal costs Sir, – Recent commentary blames judicial review for delays in infrastructure and housing projects, prompting proposals to cap legal costs for successful applicants at ¤35,000 (' Government plans for €35,000 fees cap to halt High Court delays to building projects, ' June 20th and ' Failure to tackle objectors will have dire results, ' June 27th). Judicial review exists not to frustrate policy, but to meet Ireland's obligations under the Aarhus Convention which requires access to environmental justice to be 'fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive'. Given our inordinately expensive legal system, capping legal fees at €35,000 would effectively deny access to justice for many – including individuals, community groups and NGOs. Meanwhile, the State would remain free to spend unlimited sums on its own legal team. This imbalance undermines the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and the principle of 'equality of arms' in legal proceedings. Instead of undermining this essential right, we should address the real issue: Ireland spends just 0.07 per cent of its GDP on its legal and judicial system – the lowest in Europe. Chronic underfunding, not judicial review, is the main cause of court delays. – Yours, etc, TONY LOWES, Friends of the Irish Environment, Co Cork. GAA and the Mayo board Sir, – The choice of language used by the Mayo County GAA Board in sacking its management team was disgusting. Exactly what might be expected of the owners of an English Premier League club when sacking a manager; and indeed, even then not always so. Gaelic football is an amateur sport. An amateur sport that is now garnished with the worst aspects of corporate professionalism and elitism. Major fixtures behind pay walls. Highly paid officials. Corporate boxes. Exorbitant ticket prices. All totally based on the efforts of unpaid amateur players. GAA president Jarlath Burns needs to have a chat with his full-time permanent officials. Pundits speak of managers losing the dressingroom. If GAA HQ are not careful, they may well lose a lot more than that. Mayo are a proud GAA county. An apology should issue from headquarters . And an assurance that county management teams will be treated with respect in future. An opening phrase that a manager 'has been relieved of his duties with immediate effect' undermines whatever weasel words may follow. – Yours, etc, LARRY DUNNE, Rosslare, Co Wexford. Wouldn't do a tattoo Sir, – Despite multiple back-packing trips to Thailand where guest houses often had tattoo artists in situ, despite several weekends in Amsterdam where impulsivity reigned and despite 40 plus years as a biker surrounded oftentimes by bearded brethren covered in ink, I have never felt the desire, nor the need, to get a tattoo. And now at 62, taking gravity into consideration and looking at my inked friends (bar one who is an ultra marathon runner with a lean taut physique) I am happy I didn't follow the herd. Speaking of which, is that a sheep or a cloud on your shoulder? And why does that wolf on your back look like he got implants in Turkey? – Yours, etc, LORCAN ROCHE, Dublin. Choice language Sir, – My oh my, how far the standards of The Irish Times have fallen. I am still in shock having seen the word 'arse' in one of Fidelia's Crosaire clues in this morning's paper. Where do we go from here? – Yours, etc, MJ Tomlin, Dublin.


Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the next election: anyone for the presidency?
Who would run for president of Ireland? Not many , to judge from the long list of potential candidates who have already ruled themselves out of the contest to succeed Michael D Higgins when his second term ends in November. There are a multitude of reasons for early contenders to opt out. Some know they would not win. Others have been told, or have come to realise, that they would not secure their party's nomination. For frontline politicians or those with ambitions to serve in government, the thought of occupying a largely ceremonial role in the relatively sleepy surroundings of the Phoenix Park for at least seven years may not be all that enticing. The high financial cost of running a campaign is also no doubt a factor. But it is surely undeniable that the bruising, even brutal, nature of recent Irish presidential campaigns is also deterring prospective nominees from putting their names forward. There is a long list of candidates from previous elections, including people of real standing and professional accomplishment, who say the campaign left them feeling damaged or humiliated. To anyone who values the democratic system, that's regrettable, and everyone– including parties, candidates and the media – must reflect on it. At the same time, it is vital that candidates for such an important office are subjected to serious, robust scrutiny. Candidates complain that it's all about playing the man – or woman – and not the ball. The problem is that, in presidential elections, there is no ball. The president has no executive powers and virtually no influence on policy. Their influence is softer, more nebulous and symbolic. Campaign discussions about housing or healthcare or taxation are useful only insofar as they provide an insight into the personality and worldview of the individual. READ MORE Ultimately, a presidential election is about finding the personality whom the electorate deems most suitable to represent the country and its values at a particular moment. In their different ways, each of the last three presidents have done exactly that, embodying an outlook or a set of preoccupations that both reflected – and helped to define – their eras. To say that the president's power is largely symbolic is not to imply that the role is less important. On the contrary. It is vested with important constitutional functions that require sound judgment and sharp political instincts. It is in many ways a harder role to fill than most other public office because the holder must have that rare ability to both understand politics and stand above it, to show a deep, sophisticated knowledge of the Irish experience and the ability to articulate a national vision that transcends day-to-day preoccupations. If that person is to be found, the strongest candidates must enter the contest.

Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Splits emerge between European governments over US tariff talks
Splits have emerged between European governments over talks to avert crippling tariffs on trade, as EU negotiators press United States president Donald Trump's administration for a deal in the next two weeks. Ireland, Germany, Italy and others are keen to land a quick deal with the Trump administration, while the French government is concerned about the European Union giving too many concessions. Mr Trump has threatened to put tariffs of 50 per cent on imports sold into the US from the EU, unless the two sides agree a trade deal by July 9th. Near-blanket tariffs of 10 per cent have been charged on EU goods since early April, with cars and steel subject to higher 25 per cent duties. Negotiators from the European Commission, the EU executive that leads on trade policy, have been putting more pressure on US counterparts, to get some form of tariff deal over the line before the July 9th deadline. READ MORE There is concern in Government that existing tariffs will become the new 'baseline', two sources said. Cementing tariffs at that rate would still have a significant economic impact, given the huge amount the Republic exports to the US. Officials in the Department of Finance are preparing an assessment of the impact to the Irish economy if tariffs of 10 per cent remain . European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen briefed EU leaders at a summit in Brussels late on Thursday about the progress of talks. It is understood she gauged how much national capitals would be ready to give in the tariff negotiations. [ Trump's on-off tariff announcements now the main threat to global growth Opens in new window ] Germany and Italy want the commission to make sure it agrees some type of deal, or the broad strokes of an agreement that heads off steeper tariffs, according to one source briefed on the discussions. It is understood the French government has been more hesitant and concerned about the level of concessions the EU would give to the Trump administration. French president Emmanuel Macron has said that if some US tariffs became permanent, the EU would have to consider putting similar duties on goods coming from the US. EU negotiators are expected to intensify efforts to hammer out a deal with their US counterparts in the next 12 days. Officials have largely accepted that any deal will not remove Mr Trump's 10 per cent ' liberation day ' tariffs, which apply to nearly all trade except pharmaceutical products and computer chips, which he has promised to hit with separate levies. EU trade commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said he is continuing to work towards a 'negotiated solution', after a phone call with US trade representative Jamieson Greer on Friday afternoon. Dublin and other capitals are eager to land at least a preliminary agreement, rather than extend the US tariff deadline beyond July 9th. Government sources said there is a lot of unease about the uncertainty the threat of looming tariffs was causing businesses. [ Alcohol health-warning labels to be delayed amid US-EU tariff dispute, says Harris Opens in new window ] The commission is preparing a package of retaliatory tariffs as leverage to levy on US trade if negotiations stall. It has proposed targeting Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the automobile industry and a host of other US products and sectors. The Government has asked the commission to reconsider putting counter tariffs on aircraft, medical devices, bourbon and agricultural products, to shield Ryanair, Irish whiskey distillers and the medtech sector from US crossfire in the event of a full-blown trade war. The EU's retaliatory package would only affect €25 billion worth of US trade, rather than €95 billion, if the EU was to remove from the tariff list every product member states want off, the commission recently told diplomats in a closed-door meeting.