Talk:Irish Boundary Commission

message: Does anybody have access to Irish Boundary Commission (1969) Report of the Irish Boundary Commission, 1925. Introduced by Geoffrey J. Hand. Shannon : Irish University Press. 327.415042 IRI ?  There is a reference in the Dáil record of 1967 that the British authorities had agreed to permit "access" to (but not "publication" of) the report.  Has nothing more emerged in the intervening 40 years? --Red King 02:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The full report is available on PDF for download for free from the UK's National Archives: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/search-results.asp?searchtype=browserefine&query=scope%3dcab%2061*&catid=32&pagenumber=1&querytype=1&mediaarray=*   71.23.117.168 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Book reference

message: Should we move this article to Boundary Commission (Ireland), as their is sufficent reason to assume that "Boundary Commission" was its common and official name rather than "Irish Boundary Commission", the latter which seams unlikely? Djegan 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the formal title of the body in the Republic that reviews and adjusts Dail boundaries? Would this more not create confusion? Timrollpickering 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "Constituency Commission" is used to determine Dail boundaries at this time. The Boundary Commission, as established by the Anglo-Irish Treaty, remains unambiguous in the Republic as the boundary commission and most school leavers would have no difficulty in identifying it (not least because of the mini-crisis it caused in the fledging state). Moreover Ireland as a disambig term makes it clear that the current "Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland" is not implied. Notwithstanding, I have no problem with Irish Boundary Commission, but a valid case must be made that it is an official and/or commoner term, and not simply "snappier". Djegan 23:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the term "Ireland" is itself ambiguous, I don't see how you can say that!  --Red King 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Point taken about Ireland, but Irish means Ireland as much as Northern Irish means Northern Ireland, (tell someone from Northern Ireland that they are Irish and wait for a response)! It must be remembered that the Boundary Commission was as much a commission on the Irish Free State boundary as that of Northern Ireland and indeed this appears to be confirmed by a statement given by David Lloyd George (apparently Dec 6, have vague ref in a written encyclopedia) to cabinet that the Irish Free State may loose territory; additionally this appears to be part of the reason for the suppressed report. Djegan 00:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Point taken as well about UK audience, how often do we see and read about "National Health Service", "Member of Parliament" and other very specific UK-terms that are applied to non-UK places, simply because the convey a concept quickly. Djegan 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Irish Boundary Commission" vs. "Boundary Commission (Ireland)"

message: I've added in the IFS Treaty payment obligations set-off against keeping the 1920 line. Not a good deal for GB and NI in the long term, and not admissible in the South due to the irredentist claims; perhaps why this has been kept so quiet for 80 years. It's a wicked old world. Always look at the boring accounts, not the silly flags! Cheers,Wikiman 11:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't kept quiet. I've added the Dail debate URL reference; the amount has always been in there. Not given its due priority perhaps.Red Hurley 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial trade-off

message: I've found and added memos of the original negotiations leading to the agreement of 3 December 1925. All sides exhibit the usual climbing up and then down from their positions. I'm a resident of what was the Free State and I have to say the full story was not told to us at school. Instead the story was that the boundary was imposed 2-1, with no mention of the negotiations or financial advantages.Red Hurley (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that schoolchildren in other jurisdictions were any better informed. Many of the primary sources are not long available, and who knows what gems as yet lie 'undiscovered'? RashersTierney (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right as usual, Rashers, but the Dáil reports said it all and had been published for decades.Red Hurley (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions May 2009

message: I reverted the deletion of Donalpcorcoran's addition of "Freedom to Achieve Freedom: The Irish Free State 1922-1932" (by Donal P. Corcoran) to "Further Reading".  Donalpcorcoran seems to have added the same reference to about a dozen articles in one day.  Notwithstanding the apparent WP:COI, Mr. Corcoran's book is a useful secondary source for information on the subject of this article, especially on the negotiations that followed the Morning Post article.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Donalpcorcoran

message: In the lede it says: "and the existing border was ratified by W. T. Cosgrave, Sir James Craig, and Stanley Baldwin on 3 December 1925 as part of a wider agreement". But surely they agreed it and it was ratified by the 3 parliaments over the following week. Any problems with that?PatrickGuinness (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Who ratified what

message: On 7 November 1925 an English Conservative newspaper, The Morning Post, published leaked notes of the negotiations, including a draft map. The overall effects of the Boundary Commission's recommendations would have been the transfer of 286 square miles to the Free State and 77 square miles to Northern Ireland.'The Irish Border: History, Politics, Culture' By Malcolm Anderson, Eberhard Bort, pg. 96 The leaked report included, accurately, the Boundary Commission recommendation that parts of east Donegal would be transferred to Northern Ireland. Only 1 in every 25 Northern Irish Catholics would have been placed under Free State rule.'The Irish Border: History, Politics, Culture' By Malcolm Anderson, Eberhard Bort, pg. 96 The Boundary Commission's recommendations would have shortened the border by 51 miles (approx. 18%).'The Irish Border: History, Politics, Culture' By Malcolm Anderson, Eberhard Bort, pg. 96
The Boundary Commission's recommendations, as reported on in the The Morning Post were seen as an embarrassment in Dublin. There they were perceived as being contrary to the overarching purpose of the Commission, which they considered was to award the more Nationalist parts of Northern Ireland to the Free State. Professor MacNeill resigned his cabinet post on 20 November. Despite resigning, he then voted in favour of the settlement on 10 December. It is likely that the press leak caused the boundary negotiations to be swept into the wider agreement signed on 3 December (see below).Paul Bew "Ireland: The Politics of Enmity, 1789–2006" (Oxford University Press, 2007) p.447. 
"If the settlement succeeded it would be a great disservice to Ireland, North and South, to have a map produced showing what would have been the position of the persons on the Border had the Award been made. If the settlement came off and nothing was published, no-one would know what would have been his fate. He himself had not seen the map of the proposed new Boundary. When he returned home he would be questioned on the subject and he preferred to be able to say that he did not know the terms of the proposed Award. He was certain that it would be better that no-one should ever know accurately what their position would have been." 
Do we know what the map showed? AlwynJPie (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Available at StackExchange. Haven't checked whether the image can be used here. samillar94 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Also! An older, maybe early version at this history site and this one here. samillar94 (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  are either of the maps public domain?? WisDom-UK (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  as copyright has expired on the Morning Post post map (after 70 years) I have included it on the page. I will also try and get scans of the detailed map presented with the IBC report which shows the changes recommended (the scans on the National Archives are B&W and to faint to see properly).WisDom-UK (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Boundary Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607083449/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0013/D.0013.192512100009.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0013/D.0013.192512100009.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Boundary Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607082625/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0013/D.0013.192512070003.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0013/D.0013.192512070003.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified