Why did Ireland leave the Commonwealth in 1948?



The Reform Movement has done some research on the why the Coalition government decided to take Ireland out of the British Commonwealth in 1948. This research was carried out following a casual remark made by the ex-Irish Ambassador to the USA, Mr Noel Dorr, who said to some Reform members that Ireland did not leave the British Commonwealth, but was asked to leave by the British government. This extraordinary interpretation is not supported by the facts, even though perhaps it is the received wisdom in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The research is based on John B O'Brien's article "Ireland's Departure from the British Commonwealth" in the Round Table 1988 and a chapter from by MacDermott in a study of Clann na Poblachta.

The facts seem to be as follows:

Basically, the Coalition government (Fine Gael and Clann na Poblachta) wanted to leave the Commonwealth FOR GOOD and made this quite clear to the British government in 1948 (Attlee). In fact, Dublin insisted when talking to London at that time, that they had left the Commonwealth in 1936 and they did not attend any meetings between 1936 and 1948. However, they badly bungled the repeal of the External Relations Act (ERA) as they did not think through the implications for Ireland north and south, particularly the enormous legal consequences. The British representative in Dublin, Lord Rugby, had a very low opinion of Costello and thought he handled the repeal of the ERA in "a slapdash and amateur fashion".

When they announced they were going to repeal the ERA, they were told by the British government that there was no alternative but to treat them like any other foreign country, which meant that movement of citizens would be restricted and irreparable damage would be done to Irish trade and business. Incredibly, none of the implications of becoming a republic and leaving the Commonwealth were thought through by Costello, MacBride and the cabinet. They were, in effect, shooting their own country in the heart. And why? In MacDermott's rich metaphorical words:

"This was a two pronged robbery, aimed as much at deValera as at MacBride, for in donning the natty nationalist rain-gear of deValera, and in stealing the republican raiment of the bathing MacBride, Costello did not merely appropriate their garments, but also enabled Fine Gael to reclaim their nationalist ancestry and heritage, and to lay claim to a portion - their portion - of the national iconography and the symbols of national identity, thereby shedding their unfortunate démodé allegiance to the Commonwealth".

All hell broke out. The initial stance of Attlee and Lord Jowitt, the Lord Chancellor, was not to be conciliatory but Dr Evatt, the Australian Deputy PM, intervened (for obscure reasons, see below) and eventually prevailed on Attlee and the Canadian PM, MacKenzie King and the Canadian Secretary of State for foreign affairs, Lester Pearson (the Canadian cabinet was not supportive of the Irish stand) and on the Australian PM, Chifley (puzzled by what Ireland was up to) plus New Zealand PM Peter Fraser, not to treat the Free State like a foreign country once it became a Republic. Attlee and Jowitt gave way so the new ROI emerged with the same status in effect as a Commonwealth country, despite the fact that Costello and McBride were adamant that Ireland left the Commonwealth (in this Noel Dorr is misinformed, the Free State was certainly not asked to leave the British Commonwealth and in fact great efforts were made to keep it in the Commonwealth by the big hitter members, and by the Queen Mother, to no avail). In fact, Costello, under pressure, promised he would look at re-joining later on but quickly forget about it when he got back to Dublin.

As far as Northern Ireland was concerned, the result was ironical and very telling. The British Ireland Bill was introduced which copper fastened the Ulster Unionists to Great Britain. This Bill would not have been introduced had the Coalition decided to keep the ERA so was brought on because of what Costello did. "If there was any doubt before the repeal of the ERA about the survival of Northern Ireland as a separate entity, there were none afterwards. It was the tactics used rather than the repeal itself which brought that about", as O'Brien puts it. MacBride's vision of a united Ireland had been "severely dented". He was very fortunate to retain Ireland's previous advantages. Again the Brits being accommodating to the Irish as Ireland would have suffered irreparable damage to its trade and restrictions on the movement of citizens..." a policy decision had been made without regard to its consequences", as O'Brien put it.

Some extracts from John O'Brien's paper on Ireland's departure from the British Commonwealth:

Dr HV Evatt, the Australian Deputy PM's "motives are as obscure as Costello's. He had no previous involvement in Irish internal affairs; he was not of Irish extraction and he had no instructions from Canberra, but he was destined to play a pivotal part in the crisis" according to O'Brien. Chifley, the Australian PM. "was not unduly concerned about the Irish vote in Victoria and Evatt himself, being an MP for a Sydney constituency, had little to fear personally from the Irish in Victoria, whose numbers anyway were declining. Of possibly greater importance for Evatt was his concern for world peace-keeping bodies - he had been largely instrumental in designing the Charter for the United Nations, and in 1948 he was President of that body. He was equally committed to the British Commonwealth as a vehicle for the preservation of peace and the democratic way of life in the world and was loath to see it being undermined or fragmented, especially as ...(wait for it!)... in his view Ireland was as much a mother country as Britain". How would Adams and MM like that? He acted entirely on his own initiative. His effectiveness "was enhanced by the fact that he was in Europe and not in Canberra because it is extremely doubtful if he would have received the backing of the cabinet for his actions". Dr Evatt was "extremely indignant" at Costello's announcement. It therefore came as a great shock to the British when Dr Evatt decided to champion the Irish cause". Again it is doubtful if the Canadian Sec of State for Foreign Affairs, Lester Pearson, and the New Zealand PM Peter Fraser would have secured the support of their cabinets. They were in Paris so could act more freely. The Canadian cabinet was "very cold towards Eire" and the New Zealand cabinet was "also quite tepid in its response". Without Evatt, Fraser and Pearson "it is doubtful if the Irish would have made any headway with the British". "The Irish could not have anticipated Dr Evatt's intervention without which Ireland would surely have suffered irreparable damage to its trade and restrictions on the movement of its citizens".

At a meeting at Chequers on 17th Oct 1948 the Irish "weakly hinted that they might consider rejoining the Commonwealth at a later stage. On returning to Dublin they promptly dropped the idea and never raised it again. They refused to match like for like on reciprocal privileges for the Irish and Commonwealth citizens in the other person's country." Sounds familiar re the Belfast Agreement and the southern minority also British passports. The British government "placed Commonwealth solidarity before the inevitable hostile reaction to the Eire settlement". Irish votes in England were not discussed nor were a factor of any major consideration by the British government, according to O'Brien. Ireland was obdurate "in refusing to make any concession whatsoever". Sound familiar? Adams. "Britain was determined to have Irish citizens treated as aliens and to withdraw all preferences for Eire under the most favoured nation clauses of trade treaties", but Evatt would not endorse this policy partly because "Eire was covered by Sections 2 and 3 of the British nationality Act so that the UK would have to repeal these two sections".

"MacBride and MacGilligan, Ireland's Minister of Finance, representing Costello, held to their position and insisted that Ireland had not been a member of the Commonwealth since 1936 and had no intention of becoming one now".

"The Irish citizens enjoyed the franchise in the UK and other Commonwealth countries, the same was not true for UK and Commonwealth citizens in Ireland". At the end of the negotiations, "Ireland was now in the Commonwealth without being in it. The Sydney Sunday Sun described it as "so typically Irish that perhaps a solution should best be left to the Irish. No other people could hope to understand it". "it achieved the immediate objective of breaking the link with the Crown" which "suited the Irish". Later on, "subsequent special ad hoc arrangements for Eire's attendance as observers were not ruled out" but in fact did not happen.

Reform Movement 2004Print This Page 


Commonwealth
more >

British Citizenship
more >

Minority Concerns
more >
Text Only News Join Children Magazine Faq's Links Search Search Credits Contact Reform

<< ARTICLES
Irish Language
Leaving Commonwealth
Cork 1919-21
Irish in India
Ireland and WW2
Ireland and Empire