Should Ireland be a british dominion?

[squid_hills]

I would argue that Ireland was not as unified as you're saying, and it's disingenuous to display it as such. If Ireland was so anti-British, why would the Constitution of 1937 pass by 56.5% and not something higher? If Ireland was as unified as you say, why was the constitution opposed by members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party? Because it wasn't a unified nation. Whilst most Irish establishments such as the Irish Independent celebrated it, alongside most Irishmen, The Irish Times for example criticised the constitution's assertion of a territorial claim on Northern Ireland, and the absence in its text of any reference to the British Commonwealth.

And why, if they were already completely sovereign, would the constitution make mention of national sovereignty, saying that it provides 'inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right' of the Irish people to self-determination (Article 1) and that Ireland itself is declared to be "sovereign, independent, [and] democratic" (Article 5).
Why were these highlighted as important parts of the constitution if Ireland was already, completely independent? Fact of the matter is, they weren't, de jure yes, like the rest of the dominions, but not de facto.

Two words: political theater. All of the treaties/agreements/disputes (on both sides) were political pantomime to secure votes at home. Some parties in Ireland wanted to pay lip service to dominion status, in an effort to secure trade with the UK for the economy's sake. Some parties in the UK wanted to pay lip service to dominion status to keep from having to face the national embarrassment that the vaunted British Empire was fracturing. Some parties in Ireland wanted to pander for votes at home by loudly railing against the 1922 treaties because it's easy to say "Ireland should be whole and united", if you know there isn't going to be a war over it for practical reasons. By playing the "autonomy/independence in stages" game, the British could save face and the Irish could consolidate their gains and build Ireland into a modern nation (Ireland was an impoverished 3rd world country in 1936). There were reasons to pretend various things on both sides, but don't have any illusions about this perceived Irish disunity: the Irish were united in disdain of the British. If the UK had gone to war in 1936 over the Rhineland, and tried to force Ireland to join in, the Irish would've refused to participate. If the UK had tried to use military force to get Irish compliance, the Irish would've fought back as a unified nation. As long as the UK stayed on its side of the border, the Irish would happily fight among themselves. If the British tried to reclaim their authority over the rest of the island, that infighting would cease for the duration of the conflict.

Nothing unifies people, any people, like a common, external enemy. And the British had been the enemy of the Irish for 700 years by that point. That's an animosity that takes a looooooong time to fade away.

 

[Ironside112]

Two words: political theater. All of the treaties/agreements/disputes (on both sides) were political pantomime to secure votes at home. Some parties in Ireland wanted to pay lip service to dominion status, in an effort to secure trade with the UK for the economy's sake. Some parties in the UK wanted to pay lip service to dominion status to keep from having to face the national embarrassment that the vaunted British Empire was fracturing. Some parties in Ireland wanted to pander for votes at home by loudly railing against the 1922 treaties because it's easy to say "Ireland should be whole and united", if you know there isn't going to be a war over it for practical reasons. By playing the "autonomy/independence in stages" game, the British could save face and the Irish could consolidate their gains and build Ireland into a modern nation (Ireland was an impoverished 3rd world country in 1936). There were reasons to pretend various things on both sides, but don't have any illusions about this perceived Irish disunity: the Irish were united in disdain of the British. If the UK had gone to war in 1936 over the Rhineland, and tried to force Ireland to join in, the Irish would've refused to participate. If the UK had tried to use military force to get Irish compliance, the Irish would've fought back as a unified nation. As long as the UK stayed on its side of the border, the Irish would happily fight among themselves. If the British tried to reclaim their authority over the rest of the island, that infighting would cease for the duration of the conflict.

Nothing unifies people, any people, like a common, external enemy. And the British had been the enemy of the Irish for 700 years by that point. That's an animosity that takes a looooooong time to fade away.

but we're not talking about what-ifs, we're talking about our time-line. Britain still held ports, still considered Ireland a dominion, hell, Ireland considered Ireland a dominion until 1937 (for the most part) and that's kinda just how it should be displayed. Am I asking for current dominions to be used to reflect this? No, I wouldn't say that's a great idea because the puppet system could really use some work. I do expect Ireland to fight the British over any encroachment into their nationhood, but the point I'm trying to make is that they weren't completely sovereign until 1937, and imo, it should be displayed as such.

Me and some others considered the idea for a loyalty system for puppets/dominions, and surely that would make the most sense in helping display Ireland in it's correct light? They could start off as hostile to Britain whereas the rest of the dominions were anywhere from 100% loyal to mostly, and that'd give much more give and take in the puppet system as it currently sits, and would display Ireland effectively - a dominion which didn't want to be one. Ofc there'd be bonuses or negatives depending on if they're loyal or not, so in that case, there could be ways of displaying Irish independence as it would stand from Irish sovereignty.

 

[Louella]

I don't think that any level of puppetry would work, not with how peace deals etc work ingame.

I am also unsure that trying to model these unique situations would be effort that is well spent.

Northern Ireland is also not exactly greatly modelled right now either. It had its own parliament and law-making abilities at the time. More of an integrated puppet than a core state, maybe.
But there is no mechanic for shipyards in a puppet being controlled by the overlord, which means the Harland&Wolff shipyards in Belfast cant be modelled except if Northern Ireland is a core of the UK.

NI may have been considered a core by the republic of Ireland, but the population had distinctly different ideas about that, which I don't think can be modelled well in HOI4 either.

 

[squid_hills]

I think a hostility/loyalty system would be great to model South Africa, because the political situation there was complicated and messy and support for the UK was far from universal, but I maintain that making Ireland a dominion is pointless. Yes, they were one legally. On paper. But the UK could not enforce that dominion status realistically. So they were not a dominion in fact, but only in name. Ireland declared legal independence in 1937 and the UK shrugged. It didn't stop them because it couldn't stop them without weakening itself. The UK also just publicly accepted what everybody privately knew since 1922; Ireland was an independent nation. The treaty ports were an economic concession moreso than a political one (military bases are good for local economies, until they close). Ireland was a dominion in name; they were independent in fact.

The things one gets from a puppet in-game don't apply to Ireland. The UK couldn't demand/request divisions from Ireland. Ireland didn't donate factories to the UK. The UK's army most assuredly did not have military access to Ireland. The only thing the UK had was docking rights, and you don't need to be a puppet to grant that.

Now, I would support changing Ireland's name to 'The "Dominion" of Ireland', with 'dominion' in sarcastic quotes, (and automatically reverting it to just 'Ireland' in 1937) because Ireland was a dominion in name only. But actually making them a dominion, and revamping the dominion system, just to give them a status they would lose after a year anyway seems like a wasted effort. The dominion system could use a re-work (especially to correctly model SA and Egypt) but Paradox has already spent the correct amount of time modelling Ireland's political status vis a vis the UK: none at all.

 

[Ironside112]

I think a hostility/loyalty system would be great to model South Africa, because the political situation there was complicated and messy and support for the UK was far from universal, but I maintain that making Ireland a dominion is pointless. Yes, they were one legally. On paper. But the UK could not enforce that dominion status realistically. So they were not a dominion in fact, but only in name. Ireland declared legal independence in 1937 and the UK shrugged. It didn't stop them because it couldn't stop them without weakening itself. The UK also just publicly accepted what everybody privately knew since 1922; Ireland was an independent nation. The treaty ports were an economic concession moreso than a political one (military bases are good for local economies, until they close). Ireland was a dominion in name; they were independent in fact.

The things one gets from a puppet in-game don't apply to Ireland. The UK couldn't demand/request divisions from Ireland. Ireland didn't donate factories to the UK. The UK's army most assuredly did not have military access to Ireland. The only thing the UK had was docking rights, and you don't need to be a puppet to grant that.

Now, I would support changing Ireland's name to 'The "Dominion" of Ireland', with 'dominion' in sarcastic quotes, (and automatically reverting it to just 'Ireland' in 1937) because Ireland was a dominion in name only. But actually making them a dominion, and revamping the dominion system, just to give them a status they would lose after a year anyway seems like a wasted effort. The dominion system could use a re-work (especially to correctly model SA and Egypt) but Paradox has already spent the correct amount of time modelling Ireland's political status vis a vis the UK: none at all.

I did actually propose that dominions should be given greater autonomy anyway, like not being able to request divisions or be able to decline a call to arms. for Ireland in that sense, I would propose a hostile dominion be able to cancel military access, among other things, but have that option from the get go because I'm not saying Ireland wasn't independent, it just wasn't fully sovereign which is kinda an important distinction. Im not in favour of just reworking the system to suit them either - dominions and the puppet system is way too static imo and is too easy to either break free or annex depending on if you're playing. It'd also give each dominion a sense of individuality - all of the dominions had unique enough agreements that they probably should be displayed seperately, but that's not a good choice gameplay wise. Giving a loyalty/trust system could be a great way of replicating their independence movements and in Irelands case, showcase them as literally independent but with the mark of a dominion - as that is de jure all they were

 

[Krey_Lollipop]

I think a hostility/loyalty system would be great to model South Africa, because the political situation there was complicated and messy and support for the UK was far from universal, but I maintain that making Ireland a dominion is pointless. Yes, they were one legally. On paper. But the UK could not enforce that dominion status realistically. So they were not a dominion in fact, but only in name. Ireland declared legal independence in 1937 and the UK shrugged. It didn't stop them because it couldn't stop them without weakening itself. The UK also just publicly accepted what everybody privately knew since 1922; Ireland was an independent nation. The treaty ports were an economic concession moreso than a political one (military bases are good for local economies, until they close). Ireland was a dominion in name; they were independent in fact.

The things one gets from a puppet in-game don't apply to Ireland. The UK couldn't demand/request divisions from Ireland. Ireland didn't donate factories to the UK. The UK's army most assuredly did not have military access to Ireland. The only thing the UK had was docking rights, and you don't need to be a puppet to grant that.

Now, I would support changing Ireland's name to 'The "Dominion" of Ireland', with 'dominion' in sarcastic quotes, (and automatically reverting it to just 'Ireland' in 1937) because Ireland was a dominion in name only. But actually making them a dominion, and revamping the dominion system, just to give them a status they would lose after a year anyway seems like a wasted effort. The dominion system could use a re-work (especially to correctly model SA and Egypt) but Paradox has already spent the correct amount of time modelling Ireland's political status vis a vis the UK: none at all.

This sounds almost exactly like what I was saying, but with a different stance on Ireland.

The thing is that if they rework the puppet system properly, making Ireland a puppet would take 15 minutes tops (I'm not counting testing, which would take hours or maybe even days, because that's a must eitherway if you rework the puppet system).

I did however say that I found the current solution for Ireland to be a perfectly fine simplification, just that making them a puppet could be good for showing what a new system is capable of.

I personally want it to be a very "extreme" system. One where Ireland can be a dominion in name only at the start of the game, but gain complete independence by 1937. However, if I'm playing an alt-history UK I'd also like to have the option to force (as in a military invasion) Ireland back into submission, maybe even annex them outright, at a cost. Would these two extremes be captured if Ireland isn't made a puppet?

(EDIT) I don't play that often as neither Ireland nor Britain, but in several other games I would have liked to have these options and extremes represented.

 

[riadach]

Again, my point being that if Ireland were to be portrayed as independent, so should the rest of the Dominions, who also had these rights. There is still a different between existing as a country, which Ireland did, or existing as a sovereign state, which Ireland didn't, not until their 1937 constitution.

But as you can see from the link, they didn't. Various dominion countries, with the exception of Ireland and South Africa, reserved rights to the British parliament. The Irish government argued that from 1922, no foreign parliament had a role in making Irish law.

In the document you provide, they also say how ' In certain important respects however the Irish Free State is in advance of South Africa and both in constitutional and international attributes she is the first of the Commonwealth States to have attained a position of equality with Great Britain', which is exactly what a dominion is/should be - nation equal to Britain yet within her sphere of direct influence, whether exercised or not. And as you say, the constitution adjusted the king's position, in that of assenting Irish bills and appointing diplomats, but that's still, if minor, influential. Usurping that power and giving it to the Irish themselves gave them more control over their governance - therefore, ceasing to be a dominion.

Except, the very same document did not view that Canada, Australia and New Zealand attained a position of equality with Great Britain, since even under the statute of Westminister, they allowed certain powers to be reserved to the UK parliament. Ireland did not. It was Ireland's claim that even as soon as the treaty came into force in 1922, no act of the UK parliament could restrain the Irish government. That was there yardstick for full sovereignty.

Ireland was a country, but not completely sovereign, as it requires 4 key things to be so:
- Territory - they held most of the territory they claimed, bar Northern Ireland, but I would still say that constitutes as a point

There was no constitutional claim on Northern Ireland until articles 2 and 3 of the new constitution came into effect in 1937. Under such an argument, you would be claiming that rather than asserting sovereignty, as you claimed that the 1937 constitution did earlier, the inclusion of the claim meant that Ireland was surrendering sovereignty. I'm not sure I buy that.

EDIT: accidentally pressed send before I was finished
- The King remained king in Ireland (not of, but still had presence)
- Britain still retained strategic treaty ports on Ireland's south and north-west coasts
- The Irish Free State had a status of association with the UK rather than being completely legally independent from it.

I'm not sure how status of association implies legal dependence. The monarch adopted the same ceremonial role in Ireland as the president does today. He did not have the right to refuse assent and he had to appoint diplomats on the advice of the government. A rubber stamp is a rubber stamp regardless of what accent he has. If the existence of the treaty ports implies that Ireland did not have full authority, then neither does Germany today, or indeed any country that contains US bases.

You still have not contested the point on correct display however. If Ireland should be independent in your eyes, why is South Africa not also immediately independent if it was given the same rights under the SoW? Ireland should be a dominion in a 1936 start date and you haven't really provided a reason other than the A-I Treaty of 1922, which would also mean South Africa should be independent, following your line of reasoning. Ireland was de jure independent, but not de facto which is what matters. They dont need any new fancy autonomy level, just for dominions to be given more control.

There was no law from 1922 to 1932 passed by an Uk parliament that restrained the activities of the Irish government. There was no war or military endeavour that Ireland, by association with the empire, felt compelled to join. It's particularly for that reason that I believe that Ireland would not suit as dominion as dominions cannot declare wars and cannot decline wars. Not to mention the reduction in trade cost kind of flies in the face of the independent trade policy Ireland had, hence the Economic War.

 

[riadach]

I would argue that Ireland was not as unified as you're saying, and it's disingenuous to display it as such. If Ireland was so anti-British, why would the Constitution of 1937 pass by 56.5% and not something higher?

It was a whole constitution, not a document entitled "let's give the Brits a kicking".

 

[Marcin6669]

Wait for another Country Pack, just 10 euro for see this!

 

[Ironside112]

But as you can see from the link, they didn't. Various dominion countries, with the exception of Ireland and South Africa, reserved rights to the British parliament. The Irish government argued that from 1922, no foreign parliament had a role in making Irish law.






Except, the very same document did not view that Canadna, Australia and New Zealand attained a position of equality with Great Britain, since even under the statute of Westminister, they allowed certain powers to be reserved to the UK parliament. Ireland did not. It was Ireland's claim that even as soon as the treaty came into force in 1922, no act of the UK parliament could restrain the Irish government. That was there yardstick for full sovereignty.






There was no consitutional claim on Northern Ireland until articles 2 and 3 of the new constitution came into effect in 1937. Under such an argument, you would be claiming that rather than asserting sovereignty, as you claimed that the 1937 constitution did earlier, the inclusion of the claim meant that Ireland was surrendering sovereignty. I'm not sure I buy that.





I'm not sure how status of association implies legal dependence. The monarch adopted the same ceremonial role in Ireland as the president does today. He did not have the right to refuse assent and he had to appoint diplomats on the advice of the government. A rubber stamp is a rubber stamp regardless of what accent he has. If the existence of the treaty ports implies that Ireland did not have full authority, then neither does Germany today, or indeed any country that contains US bases.




There was no law from 1922 to 1932 passed by an Uk parliament that restrained the activities of the Irish government. There was no war or military endeavour that Ireland, by association with the empire, felt compelled to join. It's particularly for that reason that I believe that Ireland would not suit as dominion as dominions cannot declare wars and cannot decline wars. Not to mention the reduction in trade cost kind of flies in the face of the independent trade policy Ireland had, hence the Economic War.

please for the love of God just read what I said about a dominion loyalty system, it clears up quite literally everything and would show Ireland correctly.

at one end, have Ireland start as hostile - keep them as a dominion however - as this is all under the assumption this is a focus tree too, no? so keeping them as a dominion would allow for an alt history option to stay as one, or at least stay close to Britain. and as others have said and I agree with, I wouldn't expect Ireland to join any wars and yes, they should break completely free of Britain tried go pressure them to do so. however, this really isn't some super difficult or time-consuming thing to do - other than the loyalty system, which would kinda need to be matched with a rework, but still, you see my point. it's quite literally a line in the history file, that's it. and I'm not saying Ireland wasn't independent, they just weren't completely, de facto, sovereign which the game could quite easily replicate without putting in stupid amounts of effort, Besides a puppet rework which needs to be done anyway imo.

tl:dr - saying how Ireland wouldn't be represented cause they could be called to arms or have divisions taken wouldn't be a problem because dominions themselves need more autonomy and a hostility/loyalty system could correctly display Ireland as independent in all bar name, which Britain could either try to usurp or let go.

also worth noting, I don't think paradox care too much for Irish intricacies due to you being able to get a core on all of Ireland when you do Unite the Anglosphere, which is stupid imo

also on the subject, I wasn't saying Ireland was surrendering sovereignty - they still held territory, which is all that point is, in fact, that was me trying to (apparently poorly) say how Ireland still ticked the box for territory as they held territory to exist and govern on.
Ireland was still a dominion, albeit in pretty much name only, but that is still a dominion. and again, this would make south Africa independent, no? provided the UK had thr option to pressure them at a later date of course.

 

[Znail]

You are mixing up the terms. Ireland was de facto independent while there were some legal parts like the King still lingering.

 

[Ironside112]

You are mixing up the terms. Ireland was de facto independent while there were some legal parts like the King still lingering.

that's not de facto, that's de jure: 'A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state.'
Ireland was therefore, de jure sovereign, the legal parts with the king prevented that (until 1937 when they got de facto sovereignty)

 

[Znail]

that's not de facto, that's de jure: 'A de jure government is the legal, legitimate government of a state and is so recognized by other states. In contrast, a de facto government is in actual possession of authority and control of the state.'
Ireland was therefore, de jure sovereign, the legal parts with the king prevented that (until 1937 when they got de facto sovereignty)

Exactly, Ireland was in actual possession of authority and control of the state as the King had no actual power, but that was not recognised by UK.

 

[Ironside112]

Exactly, Ireland was in actual possession of authority and control of the state as the King had no actual power, but that was not recognised by UK.

so they should be displayed as dominion, albeit with either greater autonomy than dominions or a reworked puppet system, because that's still what they were, and so were the other dominions - de jure sovereign states but not de facto, dominions were almost sovereign states, all of them, but weren't completely. All of the dominions behaved this way, SoW deemed it so - it didn't need to be ratified by the dominions government's because they'd already agreed to it. Dominions of Britain were therefore not a puppet government as the game displays it, so giving dominions greater autonomy in their actions would massively help in that regard, be it Ireland, Canada, South Africa, any of them.

EDIT: also worth noting I agree with Ireland being completely independent, all the dominions were de facto independent but not de facto sovereign. Sovereignty would mean complete legal and ceremonial independence, which was achieved by the rest of the dominions in the post-war period.

 

[Ironside112]

Except, the very same document did not view that Canada, Australia and New Zealand attained a position of equality with Great Britain, since even under the statute of Westminister, they allowed certain powers to be reserved to the UK parliament. Ireland did not. It was Ireland's claim that even as soon as the treaty came into force in 1922, no act of the UK parliament could restrain the Irish government. That was there yardstick for full sovereignty.

There was a reason it wasn't mentioned, it was because it was already mentioned in the Balfour Declaration of 1926 making the Dominions '... autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.'

 

[Znail]

so they should be displayed as dominion, albeit with either greater autonomy than dominions or a reworked puppet system, because that's still what they were, and so were the other dominions - de jure sovereign states but not de facto, dominions were almost sovereign states, all of them, but weren't completely. All of the dominions behaved this way, SoW deemed it so - it didn't need to be ratified by the dominions government's because they'd already agreed to it. Dominions of Britain were therefore not a puppet government as the game displays it, so giving dominions greater autonomy in their actions would massively help in that regard, be it Ireland, Canada, South Africa, any of them.

EDIT: also worth noting I agree with Ireland being completely independent, all the dominions were de facto independent but not de facto sovereign. Sovereignty would mean complete legal and ceremonial independence, which was achieved by the rest of the dominions in the post-war period.

Ireland is not the same as the dominions like Canada as while UK considers Ireland a dominion so does Ireland not do so. That means that no matter what is said in UK so wont that matter in Ireland. If anything so would the relationship be the opposit of a dominion and a negative oppinion of each other would fit as would a mutual trade embargo.

 

[riadach]

There was a reason it wasn't mentioned, it was because it was already mentioned in the Balfour Declaration of 1926 making the Dominions '... autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.'

I'm sorry but that's not the case. Those countries specifically requested that various powers be reserved to the UK parliament. Balfour merely stated they could exercise those powers should they wish. They requested to be subordinate.

 

[Ironside112]

I'm sorry but that's not the case. Those countries specifically requested that various powers be reserved to the UK parliament. Balfour merely stated they could exercise those powers should they wish. They requested to be subordinate.

But the SoW gave them the agency to do so, and follow the Declaration. And again, if Ireland should start off independent, so should South Africa, otherwise it's not consistent. Whereas a reworked dominion system (which granted greater base autonomy, alongside more debuffs or benefits depending on how far through the bar it is, and things like loyalty/hostility) would show that Ireland was de jure sovereign but not de facto until 1937, where they officially (and that's key) removed UK positions, such as the Governor General. They were independent but not sovereign, while the game displays them as sovereign, which was not the case in 1936.

EDIT: also on the subject, the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act of 1936 still regarded Ireland as a dominion, section 3 saying 'so long as Saorstát Éireann [i.e. the Irish Free State] is associated with the following nations, that is to say, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and South Africa [i.e. the dominions then within the Commonwealth], and so long as the King recognised by those nations as the symbol of their co-operation continues to act on behalf of each of those nations (on the advice of the several Governments thereof) for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements, the King so recognised may, and is hereby authorised to, act on behalf of Saorstát Éireann for the like purposes as and when advised by the Executive Council so to do.'

this therefore put some power, however little, in the hands of the Governor General and the King, as well as state that Ireland was still a dominion within the Empire at the time.

 

[Alpha2518]

Most did it because they believed it was the right thing to do, it wasn't popular and I know only a few years ago the Irish state issued a pardon to their soldiers who left to fight the Axis forces.

Why the fuck wasn't it done right after the war when everyone finds out they were fighting people putting others in ovens? That's a no brainer and if they didn't for whatever reason, then they were stupid.