Origins

ORIGINS

Contents

ORIGINS Contents: 853 Years On: Why is the Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland Still Relevant?

Impact of the Act of the Union, Annexation of Ireland, abolition of Irish Parliament Catholic Emancipation--What did it entail and impact on Anglo-Irish relations.

Was the potato famine a genocide?

The Land wars, protests, land acts and changes in government legislation The Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union The Government of Ireland Act, Irish Home Rule The Easter Rising and Irish Republican Brotherhood - breakdown of the Rising and the proclamation of the Republic The Irish War of Independence - the IRA and the first act of war, negotiations between British government and signing of Anglo-Irish Treaty The Irish Civil War The Republic of Ireland Act The Troubles 20th Century Anti Irish Sentiment Belfast/ Good Friday Agreement and the creation of the Northern Assembly What was the cause of Ireland's rapid economic growth in 1995-2005?

Ireland’s appeal to EU and IMF bailout Social laws reforms 2013-2015 Tax loopholes closed, EU pressure and impact on multinationals and corporations 2020 political standing of the Irish government

ORIGINS Editor’s note:

Origins is North London Collegiate School's History and Politics publication that was taken over by Emilia and Anya from Elisa and Talya in 2021. Established six years ago by ONLs Saibhan Bains and Maria Sigrid, with the help of Mrs Brown and Dr Goward, we are thrilled to take on this publication and continue its legacy. Our goal is to communicate to others the history of a country that is not covered in the school curriculum. For each edition, a new country is selected, and the history, politics and foreign affairs of that country is broken down and covered by a writer. Previously, we have selected Cuba and South Africa and have covered the events in the past 150 years, which have led the country to exist as it does now. We hope that you learn something new and enjoy this edition as much as we have enjoyed making it!

Emilia and Anya

With many thanks to our writers: Alex

Jemima

Kitty

Lara

Sophie

Emma

Aria

Megan

Katie

Schuyler

Karel

Keira

Zahra

Nitya

Charlotte

Anya

Emilia

Anya

Front cover: Mary A special thank you to Ms Holley who made this all possible.

ORIGINS Significant dates: 1800- The Act of Union brought about the formation of ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland’. The Irish parliament in Dublin was abolished and Irish lords and elected MPs took up their seats in Westminster.

1845- Potatoes harvested in Eastern Ireland showed signs of ‘blight’, a disease which causes potatoes to turn black. Repeated outbreaks of blight, combined with short-sighted government policies and structural problems in the Irish land system led to over a million excess deaths and the start of a sustained period of mass emigration which did not ease until the early 20th century.

1879-With the onset of a serious agricultural depression, the Irish land system came under criticism. Tenants began to demand what were called ‘the three F’s’: fair rent, free sale and fixity of tenure. Their protest activity was organised by the Land League, who sought to disrupt the eviction of tenants from their farms. Land acts in 1881 and 1903 forced landlords to sell their lands and laid the foundation for Ireland's modern system of owner occupancy.

1885- Protestants, especially those with substantial business interests in Ulster, were worried about Gladstone’s sympathetic attitude towards Irish nationalism. In 1885 they formed the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union and in 1886 the Irish Unionist party. They wanted to maintain their current position within the British commonwealth and campaigned extensively throughout Ireland, Scotland, and England.

1886- The Irish Parliamentary party who fought for Home Rule won 86 of Ireland’s 100 seats in 1885. They put pressure on William Gladstone, the leader of the British Liberal party, and in April 1886 he introduced a Home Rule bill into parliament. It failed but marked the start of a sustained attempt by Nationalists to achieve self-government for Ireland. However, the outbreak of World War I delays implementation of new Home Rule legislation which would have restored the Dublin Parliament.

1916 - Nationalists stage the Easter Rising, seizing the General Post Office in Dublin and proclaiming an independent Irish republic. The rising is crushed by the British who execute its leaders, including all seven signatories of the declaration of the republic.

1919 - Led by Éamon De Valera, the nationalist movement Sinn Féin sets up a Dublin assembly, the Dáil Éireann, which again proclaims Irish independence. A guerrilla campaign by the Irish Republican Army against British forces begins with heavy casualties on both sides.

1921 - The Anglo-Irish Treaty establishes the Free State, an independent dominion of the British crown with full internal self-government rights, partitioned from Northern Ireland which remains part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

1922 - The Dublin parliament ratifies the Anglo-Irish treaty despite the opposition of Mr de Valera and others. Civil war breaks out and hundreds are killed.

ORIGINS 1937 – A new constitution is approved which abolishes the Irish Free State and proclaims Eire (Irish for Ireland) as a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

1949 - Eire becomes Republic of Ireland and leaves British Commonwealth.

1969-1998 - Conflict in Northern Ireland known as the Troubles ensues.

1973 - Ireland joins the European Economic Community (an early form of the EU).

Violence in Northern Ireland intensifies and relations between Ireland and Britain are strained.

1998 - Good Friday Agreement approved by voters in Republic and Northern Ireland, establishing cross-community power-sharing assembly in North and ending Troubles.

2002 January - Euro replaces punt as national currency. March - Small majority of voters rejects government attempt to tighten already strict anti-abortion laws in constitutional referendum.

2009 February - Unemployment rate reaches 11% - highest since 1996. Some 100,000 people take to Dublin streets to protest at government's handling of the economic crisis.

2010 September - The cost of bailing out Ireland's stricken banking system rises to 45bn euro (£39bn), pushing the country's budget deficit up to around a third of GDP. 2010 November - Government agrees 85bn euro rescue package with EU and IMF, in bid to tackle huge hole in public finances. Government drafts austerity programme entailing four years of tax rises and spending cuts.

2013 July - Parliament passes legislation that for first time allows abortion in limited circumstances. December - Ireland officially exits EU/IMF bailout programme having fulfilled its conditions, this is the first bailed-out eurozone country to do so.

2014 October - The first post-bailout budget introduces tax cuts, and due to criticism from the US and EU, ends a loophole that allowed foreign multinationals to pay very low tax in other countries.

2015 May - Referendum approves same-sex marriage by large margin.

2016 August - European Commission orders Ireland to recover up to 13bn euros (£11bn) from the technology giant Apple in back taxes, after ruling that the firm was granted undue benefits amounting to illegal state aid.

Adapted from BBC Timeline.

ORIGINS

853 Years On: Why is the Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland Still Relevant?

It has been 853 years since the invasion of Ireland by Anglo-Norman Lords,1 sanctioned by the King of England at the time, Henry II. Whilst many may question the relevance of Medieval History in the modern world, this invasion is seen as one of the seminal moments in Irish History, by both nationalists and unionists alike. Understanding this invasion, and the following actions of the first Anglo-Norman Lord of Ireland, later known to history as King John, is vital as context for later relations between the English, as the Anglo-Normans became, and the Irish. It also shows that, even at this early stage, the Anglo-Norman rulers caused friction and tension with their lack of understanding of Irish culture and values. This manifested itself in the lack of understanding of the Gaelic interpretation of feudalism amongst some of the Anglo-Norman barons,2 attempts to impose Norman political structures on Irish politics and the inability to speak Irish.

The conquest of Ireland by the English (although, they would not have identified as such at the time, instead being thoroughly Norman in language and culture and seeing the ‘English ’as the AngloSaxons who lived across England) began in 1169, when Anglo-Norman marcher lord, Earl Richard Fitz Gilbert, known as ‘Strongbow ’was persuaded to aid the dispossessed Gaelic King, Diarmait Mac Murchada, in regaining the Kingdom of Leinster.3 It is important to give the context for this invasion and explain why an Anglo-Norman Lord like Strongbow was prepared to risk leaving behind his lands and titles, and try to claim land in Ireland. Most of the men who accompanied the expedition of 1169 were Welsh Marcher Lords, that is Norman lords who held land on the border with and in the South of Wales. Increasingly, they had found that they were losing land as the strong forces of Welsh Kings,4 especially Owain Gwynedd and Rhys ap Gruffydd had allied against Henry’s army when they launched their 1165 expedition to Wales. Men such as Strongbow, whilst holding the theoretical title of lord of Striguil,5 thus were losing their land and wealth; the prospect of the conquest of Ireland, whilst risky, also promised the possibility of great riches and wealth. The Welsh context to the conquest of Ireland is vital and it explains why King Henry II later became involved in Ireland, fearing the growing power of the men who accompanied Diarmait Mac Murchada in 1169.

The Anglo-Norman lords quickly carved out possessions for themselves in Ireland, including the strategic port cities of Wexford, Waterford, and Dublin.6 The possession of port cities was vital; it gave men like Strongbow control to all trade in Ireland, meaning that they could charge taxes and gain wealth but also, should they wish, cause problems for Henry II by clocking English trading vessels. Henry realised the threat posed by these lords and crossed to Ireland in 1171-1172, spending

1

Snell, Arthur, ‘The Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland: 850 years on’, History Extra, (2019). Sourced from [https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/anglo-norman-invasion-ireland-when-england-englishintervention/] (Accessed 15/04/2021) 2 Hays, L. and Jones, E.D., ‘Policy on the Run: Henry II and Irish Sea Diplomacy’, Journal of British Studies, October 1990, Vol.29., No.4., pp.293 – 316. Sourced from: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/175405] (Accessed 13/04/2021) p.305 3 Ibeji, Mike, ‘Henry II: An Imperialist King’, BBC History In Depth, (2017). Sourced from: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_empire_01.shtml] (Accessed 13/04/2021) and Hays and Jones, op cit.

4 Hays and Jones, op cit.

5 Ibeji, M. Op cit.

6 Hays and Jones, op cit. p.299

ORIGINS 7

six months there. This residency by an English King moved the ad hoc conquest by a few ambitious Anglo-Norman lords to an invasion under the aegis of the English King; the English have never left the island of Ireland since this time. In 1172, however, the Anglo-Norman Lords swore oaths of homage to Henry, realising that this would prevent the mighty Angevin King from taking their land away from them.8 An oath of homage in the Middle Ages proved a feudal link, meaning that Henry II was the overlord to all the Anglo-Norman lords and thus, they held their land from him as King.9 Strategically, the Anglo-Norman Lords gave Henry control over the key port cities, meaning that trade was safe. Interestingly, whilst Henry was in Ireland the Irish rulers also swore an oath of fealty to Henry; however, it is important to note the difference between the Anglo-Norman oaths and those sworn by the Irish Kings.10 The Irish were not making a long-term submission to the English King, nor acknowledging him in any way as their overlord, but rather were making a tactical promise of personal loyalty to Henry in order to prevent greater incursions into their land by Henry’s feudal subjects. 11 However, with the Treaty of Windsor of October 1175, Henry was forced to change his tactics slightly. He had to acknowledge that Rory O’Connor, High King of Ireland, held all land in Ireland with the exception of the kingdom of Leinster.12 Some historians, most notably Henry II’s biographer W.L.Warren, have argued that this Treaty marked Henry’s acceptance of Irish rule.13 However, Hays and Jones have presented a more convincing argument that Henry was merely reacting to the reality of politics in 1175; his Anglo-Norman barons had allied with Rory O’Connor.14 It is also important to note that the Treaty broke down within a year, probably due to the death of Strongbow in 117615, and Henry’s policy towards authority in Ireland once again shifted.

In 1177, Henry II decided to replace William FitzAldelm, his representative in Ireland, with his youngest (and apparently favourite) son, John. 16 John was to be given the title, Lord of Ireland, indicating that Henry now wished to impose direct, royal authority over Ireland. There were no longer to be agreements with the Irish rulers of the island; John would represent his father and later rule there, creating another scion of the Angevin Empire. However, this appointment was an unmitigated disaster and John’s behaviour in Ireland can help us to understand long-term historic tensions between the English and the Irish. John, aged 19, made an expedition to his new lordship in 1185.17 John displayed his characteristic egocentric and spoilt nature on this expedition. Apparently accompanied by a gang of teenage companions, John not only spent all the money given to him by his father on ‘riotous living18 ’, as one historian delicately puts it, but he also caused serious offense on meeting the native Irish rulers. This meeting was arranged for the Irish rulers to renew the homage that they had done to Henry II; John, however, was unable to maintain any semblance of diplomacy, and both laughed at and pulled the beards of the Irish kings, claiming that long beards had long gone out of fashion in the Angevin court.19 As a result of this insult, John managed what many observers thought 7

Ibid. pp.304 Ibid. p.305 9 Ibid 10 Hays and Jones, op cit. p.305 11 Ibid 12 Ibeji, M. op cit.

13 W.L.Warren, Henry II, Yale Monarch Series, (2000), p202 14 Hays and Jones, op cit. p.310-313 15 Ibid. p.312 16 Ibid.

17 Hays and Jones, op cit. p.314 and W.L.Warren, King John, Yale Monarch Series, (1997), p35 18 W.L.Warren, King John, op cit p.36 19 Ibid.

8

ORIGINS was impossible; he united the native Irish rulers and the Anglo-Norman lords against him and they drove him from Ireland. Some have made apologies for John’s behaviour in Ireland, blaming the ambitions of one of the Anglo-Norman lords Hugh de Lacy.20 However, knowing John’s later actions as one of the worst Kings of England, this episode appears to typify his tactlessness and complete inability to understand others.

Medieval History is often dismissed as irrelevant and boring in the English curriculum. However, for many cultures, the narrative of the Medieval world is vital to a sense of identity and history. In Ireland, the Anglo-Norman Conquest of 1169 is a seminal moment;21 for nationalists, it is the first moment that the English invaded Ireland. It was this conquest which set in motion later events; the plantations of the 17th Century, Oliver Cromwell’s brutal conquest of Ireland from Protestantism, the shameful response of the British government to the Irish Famine of 1844-1848 and, of course, the Troubles of the 20th Century. Understanding this early conquest is vital to understanding the modern political situation in Ireland and students who are interested in Irish History and Anglo-Irish relations should be encouraged to study it in greater depth.

By Ms Holley

Bibliography •

Department for Education, National Curriculum in England: history programmes of study, KS3, (2013). Sourced from: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationalcurriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-englandhistory-programmes-of-study] (Accessed 14/04/2021) • Ibeji, Mike, ‘Henry II: An Imperialist King’, BBC History In Depth, (2017). Sourced from: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_empire_01.shtml] (Accessed 13/04/2021) • Hays, L. and Jones, E.D., ‘Policy on the Run: Henry II and Irish Sea Diplomacy’, Journal of British Studies, October 1990, Vol.29., No.4., pp.293 – 316. Sourced from: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/175405] (Accessed 13/04/2021) • McGreevy, R., ‘Marking the Norman invasion of Ireland: 850 years and counting...’ The Irish Times, (1 May 2019). Sourced from: [https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irishnews/marking-the-norman-invasion-of-ireland-850-years-and-counting-1.3877350] (Accessed 15/04/2021) • Snell, Arthur, ‘The Anglo-Norman Invasion of Ireland: 850 years on’, History Extra, (2019).

Sourced from [https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/anglo-norman-invasionireland-when-england-english-intervention/] (Accessed 15/04/2021) • W.L.Warren, Henry II, Yale Monarch Series, (2000) W.L.Warren, King John, Yale Monarch Series, (1997)

20

Hays and Jones, op cit. p314 McGreevy, R., ‘Marking the Norman invasion of Ireland: 850 years and counting...’ The Irish Times, (1 May 2019). Sourced from: [https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/marking-the-norman-invasion-ofireland-850-years-and-counting-1.3877350] (Accessed 15/04/2021) 21

ORIGINS

Impact of the Act of Union 1800 In 1800, the Act of Union legally united the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This decree is still present in what we would recognise in the United Kingdom today, with the most significant amendment being the fact that it now only applies to Northern Ireland, rather than the modern-day Republic of Ireland. Overall, the political and religious impacts of the Act were disastrous for Irish peace and sovereignty, and arguably laid the foundation for the tumultuous future that lay ahead for Ireland.

In order to examine the impact of the Act of the Union holistically, it is important to consider its potential positive impacts before delving into its catastrophic long-term consequences. Firstly, Ireland’s union with Great Britain provided a springboard for economic growth due to sharing Britain’s ever-expanding economy. Thus, the union seemed like a sensible decision for the economies of both nations (particularly Ireland) at the time. One may also argue that a potential propitious impact of the union was that Roman Catholics would be respected as a minority in the United Kingdom rather than in constant conflict with the Protestants, as was the case in the original Kingdom of Ireland. However, the reality was that Roman Catholics became even more oppressed than they had ever been before, with freedom of religion and political representation becoming a huge issue in this new Union. The parliament at Westminster completely ignored the economic problems that Ireland were having, which was made even more difficult with the prospect of war.

The catastrophic religious impacts of the Act of Union for Roman Catholics can be examined in the wording of the Act itself. Despite Catholicism being one of the most prominent religious groups in the Kingdom of Ireland, it stated that the Anglican Church (attributed to Protestantism) was to be the official Church of Ireland, and no Catholics were allowed to hold public office. Thus, a large proportion of the original Irish population were completely undermined by this Act, especially as religion was fundamental to one’s life during this period. This was a significant factor in the formation of anti-unionist groups and demonstrations, and in turn, creating a foundation for civil and religious unrest to thrive. This impact also raises an even larger question of Irish nationality in general. The abolishment of the parliament in Dublin for seats in the official parliament of Great Britain completely eroded the concept of Irish institutions and traditions. The Act of Union itself preserved what we would call the Irish nationality, and thus we would expect it to preserve Ireland’s own separate institutions, customs, and interests. However, the creation of one parliament diminished this concept (even though Ireland kept its own Courts of Justice and Civil Service), creating a conflict between the notions of Irish nationality and Irish independence. Thus, the Act of Union was not sustainable in the long-term, as it provoked unrest that would later become a major problem for the Irish people.

None of the religious, political, or economic grievances of the Irish citizens were even attempted to be solved (with war making this extremely difficult), and even greater schisms between religions and nationalities were created. This not only exacerbated pre-existing problems in Ireland, but also made the united parliament divided and inefficient, which could prove to be fatal during the prospect of war.

Overall, the impact of the Act of Union did not settle any tensions in Ireland as was intended, but rather further encouraged religious divides and civil unrest. The conservation of Irish nationality without preservation Irish institutions such as the parliament of Dublin proved to be a disastrous move for both Ireland and Great Britain. Consequently, this Act exacerbated the religious and political tensions in Ireland even more, and these tensions would continue up until the 1990s during ‘The Troubles’. To conclude, there was a prospect of the Act of Union being beneficial to the Irish economy and settling political divides, but this was rooted in mere idealism, and the reality created a tumultuous political landscape that would continue for decades.

ORIGINS

By Alex

The 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act The 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act, or the Roman Catholic Relief Act, is often regarded as a ‘Uturn ’made by a Tory government. It is interesting to consider the act as being passed not out of an ideological commitment to the cause of Emancipation, but out of necessity. Indeed, the act was passed by a party in which anti-Catholic sentiments were a fundamental principle of ideology. Sir Robert Peel, who was instrumental in passing the bill, was vehemently anti-Catholic, and deeply opposed to Emancipation. He was often called ‘Orange ’Peel, which was a reference to the Orange Order that emerged in the 1790s to defend Protestantism, revealing his distaste towards Catholicism. Naturally then, Peel had no ideological support for the Emancipation Act, which admitted Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament and to hold all but a few public offices. The issue of Emancipation was becoming increasingly contentious and held a large presence in public debate because before the act was passed, Catholics were excluded from sitting in Parliament.

It thus becomes evident that Peel, the Prime Minister, and the Duke of Wellington--who engineered the act--were reluctant supporters of Emancipation, rooted, as they were, in their conservative ideology. Moreover, Peel and Wellington had been urged to support Emancipation due to wider political circumstances, rather than out of principle. Indeed, Emancipation had grown in controversy since the charismatic Irish lawyer, Daniel O’Connell formed the Irish Association in 1823, uniting Irish Catholic peasantry and middle classes to push for full Emancipation. In 1828, O’Connell won the by-election in County Clare, forcing the hands of Peel and Wellington, as the Catholic issue could no longer be neglected. The election triggered an attack on the Irish representative system, as British law had excluded Catholics from sitting in Parliament. As the majority of Ireland was Catholic, the political voice of a large section of society was being stifled, and O’Connell’s election victory demonstrated this. The situation grew more ominous as rebellion loomed, which led to Wellington’s ‘U-turn’: a Tory government would now sponsor a bill to secure Catholic Emancipation. Indeed, as Peel confessed in a speech made to the Commons in March 1829, this decision was being taken out of necessity to remedy political instability, rather than out of any matter of principle. The Tories, then, were still at root anti-Catholic, and the Catholic Emancipation Act did not alter this.

It is also worth considering the role of Daniel O’Connell, as he demonstrates the ability of the individual to impact history. His work in uniting different social groups of Ireland by his creation of the Catholic Association should not be undermined. He encouraged a large percentage of society to push the issue of Emancipation so that pressure was exerted on the government. This is significant as the vast majority of the British Establishment were staunchly opposed to Catholic Emancipation. In fact, the highest ranks of British society were entrenched in their animosity to Catholics; the opposition included King George IV, his brother, the Duke of Cumberland, and many prominent Tories like Falmouth. O’Connell, however, was able to rally and reinvigorate support for the issue of Emancipation, resulting in legislative change.

Although the act was an important milestone in securing greater civic and political rights for Catholic populations in Britain, the act cannot be regarded as transforming the Catholic presence in Britain and reforming the Protestant perception of Ireland. Whilst the act enabled Catholics to enter Parliament, they still faced challenges; Catholics were not able to hold all offices in government and were barred from higher education. Indeed, not until much later in the 19th century would they be able to enter university, as it would take further legislative change in the form of the Universities Test Act of 1871 to remove the Catholic exclusion from higher education. At Oxford, Catholics could not

ORIGINS matriculate and at Cambridge, they were not able to graduate. Thus, Catholics were socially excluded, betraying the failures of the act.

Additionally, the act is limited in that it failed to improve Anglo-Irish relations, as hostilities between Catholics and Protestants still raged. In fact, sentiments arguably hardened, and this is evident by the reprinting of anti-Catholic remarks made by the Duke of Newcastle. Newcastle was well-known for his antipathy towards Catholicism, and he was vehemently opposed to Emancipation: he wrote in newspapers and featured in pamphlets to voice his contention toward the bill. In 1837, these remarks were reprinted in a new book, revealing that passions against Emancipation had hardened, rather than improved, and consequently Anglo-Irish relations had failed to ameliorate. Alongside this, many ordinary Protestants in Britain still harboured antipathy towards Catholics, and a long history of contention had not been remedied by the act. This is apparent by the common practice of burning effigies of the Pope on Bonfire Night, until the 1850s. This demonstrates the failure of legislation to bring about social change, because Irish and Catholic issues still remained particularly contentious.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note the impact of the Catholic Emancipation Act on the Tory Party, as it contributed to the party’s defeat in 1830. Public opposition to Emancipation was so prominent that a long period of Tory dominance was ended by the act, paving the way for Whig victory.

Therefore, the Act had profound consequences for the Tory party, and it failed to radically change the Irish presence in Britain. Anglo-Irish relations had not improved, and although the issue of Emancipation was addressed, amelioration was limited because Peel and Wellington were reluctant supporters.

By Kitty

ORIGINS

Why is it argued that the Irish famine was a genocide?

Whether or not to classify the Great Irish Famine as a genocide is a complex and controversial question and cannot be answered in so short an essay. Instead this essay will outline the argument for the crisis qualifying a genocide and in doing so will explore the multiple facets of blame. The Great Famine of 1845 to 1852 was the worst crisis, in terms of mortality, in the 19th century, leading to the death of 1 million people and the emigration of a further 1-2 million. While famine was common in medieval Europe, The Great Famine was distinct in it being caused by an ecological disaster, making its damage permanent. The fungus which caused the famine, Phytophthora infestans, was brought over by North American ships and caused the potato blight through its destruction of the crop. This became serious in 1846, as the fungus caused a second failure which was this time total. Most people died not of direct starvation but of diseases closely linked to malnutrition as well as typhus which spread due to increased migration and worsening levels of hygiene. The blight’s effects were exacerbated by the high dependence on the potato crop and Westminster’s insufficient reaction, justifying the claims of genocide. Around 97% of the Irish population, predominantly rural poor, relied on not only the potato, but on the Irish Lumper variety specifically, making the effects of the fungus disastrous.

The first claim of genocide was made by John Mitchell in The Last Conquest of Ireland in 1861 who believed the British government pursued policies intended to ‘thin out those multitudinous celts’. He compared the 70 million spent on the Crimean war in 1854 and the 20 million plantation owners in the West Indies in 1833 after the abolition of slavery to the relief spent on the Irish which fell under 10 million to make such points. Others who argue the famine should be classified as a genocide, such as James Pius Sweeney, suggest ‘that the British created the conditions of dire hopelessness, and desperate dependence on the potato crop through a series of sadistic, debasing, premeditated and barbarous Penal Laws, which deliberately and systematically stripped the Irish of even the least semblance of basic human freedom.’

The initial prime minister, Robert Peel, chose to import £100,000’s worth of grain from North America in 1848. However, this did more to stabilise food prices than feed the Irish as it was hoarded by the rich and those who did obtain it lacked the necessary machinery to process it, rendering it inedible. More successful were Peel’s Public Reliefs Works which employed around 140,000 people, providing them with wages to buy food. He also, against the wishes of his party and resulting in his downfall, repealed the protectionist tariffs on domestic agriculture known as the ‘Corn Laws’. In these ways, although unsuccessful, the first government demonstrated a considerable attempt at handling the crisis unlike those to follow. However, Peel’s decision to import food rather than stop exports has been criticised as in 1844 there was a net export of grain of 294,000 tons and 485,000 in 1845, suggesting there was sufficient food being produced on the island to save lives.

The following government, as liberal Wigs, approached the crisis with a ‘laissez-faire ’attitude leaving Ireland and the free market to deal with the problem. John Russell’s government decided to leave local merchants to import food, while the government adamantly remained overseeing employment, refusing to extend food schemes despite rising death rates. A combination of economic, religious and racist beliefs was used as justification for inaction with Russell himself describing Ireland as having a ‘cancer of dependency ’while Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer, believed the famine to be ‘a visitation from the almighty’. While some public works schemes were initially implemented, after 1847 emergency measures supporting the Irish were removed and the public relief works began failing. Strikingly, soup kitchens were dismantled after six months under

ORIGINS the influence of the laissez-faire doctrine despite having fed three million people daily at their peak in July 1847. Work schemes failed as malnutrition prevented labour and inflated prices meant worker’s low wages were insufficient to purchase food for their families. Consequently, in 1849 workhouses were holding 9 times their capacity. In the summer of 1847, the belief amongst the elite that the famine had ended, and the protection of the treasury was to be prioritised further exacerbated the crisis. Simultaneously, charity relief waned as people got tired of the issue, an effect termed ‘famine fatigue’. In addition to failing to provide food, the British government did little to prevent eviction, assist migration to America or welcome the Irish to England. English landlords, some who visited their land in Ireland just once or twice in a lifetime, ruthlessly evicted tenants during the famine with 500,000 evictions recorded in the years 1846 to 1854. The British government did nothing to prevent this or to provide accommodation for the evicted. The resultant migration to Britain was unwelcomed with many of the sick sent back to Ireland by the Unions. Subsequently, many people resorted to migration across the Atlantic to North America. In 1846, 100,000 people emigrated to America and 250,000 in 1847, with under 4% receiving financial assistance from the British government to make the journey. The conditions on-board these ships crossing the Atlantic were so poor that they were termed ‘coffin ships ’as almost 30% of the 100,000 immigrants to Canada in 1847 died on-board or during quarantine, while another 10,000 died on their way to the United States.

The famine came largely to an end in 1852 due to the sheer number of deaths, continued mass emigration and a partial recovery in the crop. Today, Ireland is the only country in Europe with a smaller population than it had in 1840 which this essay has described was largely due to Westminster’s failures. The question that remains is to what extent this was intentional?

By Sophie

ORIGINS

1879-1881: Irish Land War and Gladstone’s Land Act The Land Wars were a series of protests and periods of agitation led by the Irish Land League against landlords from 1879-1880. For many years, peasant farmers had been severely mistreated by the high rates demanded by landlords: most were living in poverty and had been unable to provide for their families whilst paying rent. This poverty drove the creation of a new agrarian movement that called for fairer conditions for tenants and reform. The mistreatment of farmers is a core part of Irish history, and the Land Wars were a pivotal moment in the movement towards fairer living conditions and a better quality of life.

While the Irish Potato famine of 1845-52 is well known for its horrific loss of life from intense starvation and famine, there was a similar famine from 1877-79, the “Forgotten famine” when the potato crop again failed for three years in a row. Aside from limiting food availability and endangering the survival of many in the West of Ireland, it also massively reduced the income of many peasant farmers. With this reduced income, they struggled to pay rent and feed their families at the same time. The famine was made worse by the fact that some landlords refused to contribute to the relief funds, despite collecting thousands of pounds in rent collectively.

At the time, 97% of peasant farmers were tenants meaning that they did not own the land they worked and lived on but were subject to a landlord. So, when many were unable to pay rent as a result of the famine, they were evicted. When some refused to move, police came to evict them forcibly which led to terrible violence, and they would even burn down farmers ’homes to ensure removal. As a result, secret societies were formed to oppose this ill-treatment and responded with violence against such landlords. However, this led to a police crackdown with mass arrests, not limited to those actually involved in the attacks.

In March 1879, Michael Davitt, a prominent Fenian politician, organised a public meeting in County Mayo, chaired by James Daly of Castlebar, to discuss evictions and rent prices. It was attended by thousands and led to a withdrawal of many eviction notices and a 25% reduction in rents. This was the beginning of a new agrarian movement and the creation of the Land League of County Mayo.

The first success of the league was against a Catholic priest who threatened evictions of many of his tenants. The league led a campaign against him and successfully forced him to withdraw the threat.

The success of the County Mayo league led to the establishment of the National Land League of Ireland in October 1879. The League was led by Charles Stuart Parnell, Michael Davitt was a Secretary and James Daly a member. Their agenda was summarised as the “3 Fs for reform”: fixity of tenure, free sale and fair rent. This meant that peasants would not be overcharged for renting land, they could not be evicted without good reason, and they could sell their stake in their farm if they were moving off it. The plight of farmers at the time is reflected in how basic these demands were: it seems shocking that such regulations were not already in place. While the League’s ultimate goal was the dismantling of landlordism, these were 3 crucial elements of reform that would massively improve the lives of Irish farmers in the short term.

The most prominent success of the Land League was against Captain Boycott, from which we get the verb, “to boycott”. For many years, Captain Boycott had charged high rent rates to his tenants. To combat this, the league pursued a strategy of total social ostracization. Farmers on his land left so the crops rotted in the fields, no shops would sell food to him, blacksmiths refused to shoe his horses etc.

This eventually led to a successful outcome for the farmers. A journalist for the New York Tribune

ORIGINS who reported on the campaign called this strategy a “boycott”, coining our well-known verb that is still in use today. Another well-used strategy was rent strikes. This strategy was remarkable for the time and displayed the great intelligence of the League- to be so successful without violence but simply using the tools available to them, they were able to drive much needed change. Aside from such social campaigns, Parnell and other politicians drew attention to land issues in Ireland in Parliament as well. They pursued “obstructionism”, similar to filibustering, where they gave long speeches to obstruct the normal course of debate to highlight issues with rent and evictions.

Since 1870, a number of Land Acts had been introduced by the English Parliament in an attempt to improve the system of landlordism. These had, however, been unsuccessful. Gladstone’s Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870 actually increased tensions as landlords evaded the new requirements which led to the setting up of Tenants’ Defence Associations. As the Land War raged, Gladstone again tried to resolve the issue with the 1881 Land Law Act. This involved issuing dual ownership which expanded the rights of tenant farmers but did little to combat tenant evictions. Some more radical Irish politicians attacked the bill and issued a No Rent Manifesto which called for a national farmer rent strike, but this led to their imprisonment and government suppression of the Land League.

However, the Act did grant the “Three Fs” and it created a Land Commission with the purpose of enforcing the bill and determining a fair rate for rent payments. It also established that the government could and would intervene in landlord-tenant relations.

As stated, the change in legislation was met with a degree of frustration and also scepticism. While there was some opposition, the League pursued a strategy of caution and focused on testing the bill’s effectiveness before writing it off as a failure. They instructed their members against rushing to the courts but selected a few cases for testing. Many observers did see that while there were definite limitations to the Act, it was an important step towards abolishing landlordism in Ireland.

Unfortunately, the Act and the response of the League and Irish politicians did lead to significant disintegration of the movement as factions became divided between more radical and pragmatic members of the League. The imprisonment of leading members also did not help this and led to the conclusion of this phase of the Irish Land War. The mistreatment of farmers at the hands of landlords and Parliament is a perennial theme in this period of Irish History. While a terrible time for a large proportion of the population, the birth of a groundbreaking movement won significant successes for tenant farmers across Ireland and was an important step towards greater equality.

Eviction scene 1779 Michael Davitt

By Aria

Charles Stuart Parnell

ORIGINS

1885 Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union, Irish Unionist Party (1896) - campaign to continue relations with the British Empire In Dublin in 1885, the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union, renamed the Irish Unionist Party in 1896, was formed. At the time, there was great political unrest within Ireland, with some of the nation enthusiastically backing the Irish Home Rule Movement, which sought out Ireland’s independent sovereignty and self-government, detached from the United Kingdom, and the rest of the nation wishing to continue the union between Ireland and Great Britain. The Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union (ILPU) wished to maintain relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and rallied much support, resulting in loyalists winning 54 seats in the Irish election of 1885. There were several reasons for the support of unionism, as it benefitted many groups and individuals, such as business owners, landowners and many protestants.

One main appeal of the ILPU, and the reason many people opposed Home Rule, was the economy.

Under the union between Ireland and Great Britain, Belfast alone grew from 20,000 to 349,000 people in just 100 years, and Ireland witnessed a great boom in industry, with employment in engineering and many other fields rising significantly. This led to Ireland’s economy flourishing, and as a result many people linked Ireland’s prosperity with the union, as Great Britain at the time was undergoing an industrial revolution. Not only did the economy as a whole improve, but many individuals saw an increase in wealth due to land ownership, which became a large part of income for many individuals, specifically protestants. To the rest of the world, Ireland was the prime example of the gain a country could get under the British empire, and to many, this was reason enough to oppose Home Rule, as they feared without the aid of Great Britain, Ireland’s economy would rapidly deplete. This was amplified by the fact that the union offered several amenities to Ireland, such as free trade.

The campaign led by the ILPU and other unionists to go against Home Rule and rally support for the union consisted of several different tactics such as riots, meetings and advertisements using pamphlets and leaflets that were distributed to the public. One notable set of riots took place in the summer of 1886, which ended with the death of 32 people, and 422 arrests. The majority of riots and conflicts surrounding the union had the involvement of both Catholics and Protestants, as at the time there was a large degree of religious tension between the two groups. This was amplified by the fact that unionism was often associated with Protestantism, resulting in many Catholics opposing the union and therefore becoming involved with political conflicts such as the conservative pro-union riots. The campaign was also aided by the fact many people in Britain backed the union, notably key political groups, such as the Conservative Party, which in 1885, had 247 seats in the British Parliament. These methods of campaigning gained the unionist movement, and eventually the ILPU, lots of popularity within Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and therefore preserved a united Ireland until 1921, and involvement in the commonwealth until 1949.

However, despite gaining a lot of popularity, the ILPU also faced a lot of opposition. This mainly came from Catholics and working-class individuals, who resented the Protestant-lead land ownership system because the price of rent rose, and landlords exploited their tenants at this time, despite the Land Act of 1881 which sought to protect tenants. Due to the amount of religious tension, Catholics tended to oppose unionism, as it was typically equated with Protestants, and therefore for a matter of principle, Catholics generally opposed movements that supported and aided Protestantism. Another key reason many people opposed the union and consequently the ILPU, was because they believed Great Britain should not have sovereignty over Ireland, as they believed in the importance of Irish

ORIGINS independence. This belief in independence was intensified by the example of the USA and France, as their fights for independence in 1783 and 1789 respectively acted as testament that British sovereignty was not needed for a country to prosper.

Overall, the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union was a relatively successful movement, which campaigned for the preservation of union and relations between Great Britain and Ireland, as it gained lots of support throughout the United Kingdom and utilised political techniques, such as riots, to increase popularity. However, the ILPU was just delaying the inevitable, as religious tensions divided the country, making it impossible for Ireland to stay one nation, as the Catholic majority in what is now the Republic of Ireland strongly opposed this. The problems within Ireland that flourished under the Union, such as land ownership and education problems, were also too large to ignore, and simply increased public resentment, slowly diminishing the efforts of the ILPU, and later Irish Unionist Party.

By Katie

ORIGINS

Irish Home Rule The Government of Ireland Act which is more widely known as the Home Rule Act was passed by the UK Parliament in 1914, it was the third bill calling for Home Rule introduced in a span of 28 years and was passed because of the huge momentum of the Home Rule movement. There is a long and complex history surrounding Irish Home Rule with its beginnings far before the Home Rule Acts of 1914 and 1920. The Protestant Lawyer Isaac Butt formed the Home Government Association back in 1870. Three years later, the Home Rule League replaced the Home Government Association with Charles Stewart Parnell leading it; his leadership compared to that of Isaac Butt’s was far more aggressive. Under Parnell’s leadership, the Home Rule cause became more widely known, mainly because of the obstructionist tactics he employed in the British Parliament. In 1885 Prime Minister William Gladstone became supportive of Home Rule and the bill was introduced to Parliament, however it was rejected in 1886. The second Home Rule Bill that Gladstone introduced in 1893 was similarly defeated, but this time it had reached the House of Lords. In order to pass the third Home Rule Act, they had to wait until a liberal government came into power. The Conservative government pursued a policy of “constructive unionism”; this entailed effecting moderate reforms and concessions to alleviate the need for Home Rule.

The cover of an 1889 edition of Queensland Figaro and Punch depicting Irish Australians offering enthusiastic support to Parnell’s struggle for Home Rule

The Prime Minister Asquith introduced the third Government of Ireland Act on 11 April 1912. The Bill stated that a bicameral (a legislative body containing two chambers) Irish Parliament would be established in Dublin. This Irish Parliament would consist of a 40-member Senate and a 164 member House of Commons. Moreover, each province of Ireland would be represented by ten senators elected by proportional representation. In addition, the Bill stated that a reduced number of Irish MPs would continue to attend the British Parliament.

ORIGINS It was a struggle to ratify the third Home Rule Act as it was defeated twice by the House of Lords in 1913. In 1914, after the third reading of the Act, it was passed by the Commons on 25 May 1914 by a 77-person majority. Despite this, it was defeated a third time in the Lords, so the Government used the provisions of the Parliament Act to override the ruling of the House of Lords and send the third Government of Ireland Act for Royal Assent where it got approval. The Home Rule Act was incredibly significant as it was the first law ever approved by the Parliament of the UK that created a devolved government in any part of the “UK proper” (not colonial territories).

However, the bill was postponed due to the First World War. After the end of the war, the Act still did not come into effect because the Irish Republican Brotherhood orchestrated the Easter Rising in April 1916 which was followed by executions and imprisonments. The consequences of the Easter Rising turned Irish public opinion against the nationalists who were pro-Home Rule and towards the more radical Sinn Féin party. In addition, the Conscription Crisis of 1918 where the British government attempted to impose conscription in Ireland during WWI, increased support for political separatism. As a result of this, in the 1918 general election, the Irish Party was defeated by Sinn Féin and the first parliament of the Irish Republic was formed.

In 1920, after many years of conflict, the Government of Ireland Act passed. This Act partitioned Ireland into north and south and formed two separate Home Rule establishments. Northern Ireland was comprised of the six north-eastern counties and the rest of the country became Southern Ireland.

Under the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, both north and south Ireland were to continue as part of the UK and there were plans drawn for their future reunification under common Home Rule. The institutions created under the Home Rule Act for Northern Ireland remained in place until 1972 when they were dismantled due to the Troubles.

Home Rule never took effect in Southern Ireland because of the Irish War of Independence. Instead of Home Rule, in 1921 the Anglo-Irish treaty was signed which put an end to the Anglo-Irish War and the Irish Free State was formed in 1922. In contrast with Home Rule which their northern counterparts operated under, the Anglo-Irish Treaty gave the remaining 26 southern countries dominion status like that of Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The nominal link between the Republic of Ireland and the British Commonwealth was ended in 1949.

By Emilia

ORIGINS

1916 - The Easter Rising and Irish Republican Brotherhood, breakdown of the Rising and Proclamation of the Republic The Proclamation of 1916 contained core ideas which represented the authors looking back to a series of different moments in the past. The 16th and 17th centuries were marked by regular outbreaks of rebellion. The authors of the Proclamation had a set of views about universal principles that came out of a political activation of some philosophical ideas that were developed in the 1600s, part of what is called the ‘Enlightenment’. This is the idea that there are certain things that everyone should share: equal rights, equal liberties and equal opportunities.

Across the 16th and 17th centuries, to enforce control of the rebellions, the British withdrew basic civil rights from the Irish Catholics, making them second-class citizens in their own land. During the 1800s, the British Empire grew significantly, and following the Act of Union in 1801, the British state sought to incorporate Ireland more and more into its Imperial project. Whilst the British Empire grew rich, Ireland’s growth stagnated, and the living standards in Dublin declined gradually through the 1800s. This decline was accelerated by the Great Famine in the 1840s, which in itself highlighted the fact that the British government was not prepared to look after the Catholic population of Ireland as it would have done for its own English people.

In 1858, two organisations were formed: the Fenian Brotherhood in New York, and the Irish Republican Brotherhood in Dublin. From the outset they were regarded as two linked organisations working towards the same objective: the creation of an independent Irish Republic. Driven by the Irish journalist John Devoy, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) developed its vision, that only by becoming free from the British Empire could Ireland achieve self-determination and equality for her people. At the beginning of the 1900s, Ireland had no control of foreign policy, of taxation or of defence. When the 1910 election in Britain produced a hung parliament, John Redmond, leader of the Home Rule movement, offered liberal party leader Herbert Asquith his support on the condition that Home Rule was enacted. Asquith promised that for the first time since the Act of Union 100 years earlier, Ireland would have the right to govern its own affairs. The demand for Home Rule had huge support among the nationalist population, even those who would have liked something more robust and extreme, like the IRB. From the start, the IRB was intent on infiltrating the Irish volunteers, but the purpose of the volunteers was to ensure Home Rule, not to rise against the British state, and if they were to be used in an uprising they would have to be radicalised. The Irish volunteers began to acquire arms with help from networks abroad, and guns sourced from Germany. Soon after, Ireland was militarised on all sides. Ireland in the summer of 1914 was described as being on the brink of civil war, which was driven by the determination of the Irish volunteers to defend Home Rule by whatever means necessary. However, after war broke out in 1914, the whole context in which Britain was dealing with Ireland was changed, and Britain postponed the implementation of Irish Home Rule.

John Devoy saw the possibility of an alliance between the Germans and the Irish so began to have meetings with the Germans over the assistance that they might render for the rising. The military council decided the time had come for them to rebel against Britain, and within months the poet and journalist Joseph Plunkett became the IRB’s primary military strategist. Plunkett drew up plans to seize key locations in Dublin city centre whilst volunteers would also rise in towns across the country.

Mobilisation in Ireland was a cover for a full-scale rebellion, and two days before the Rising, a cargo ship carrying 20,000 rifles and 1 million rounds of ammunition arrived in Ireland from Germany.

However, when the British were alerted, these weapons were lost. Eoin MacNeill, one of the Irish volunteers, was convinced that the rising had no chance of succeeding and thought that it was immoral to have a rebellion which had no chance of success. On Easter Sunday, the day the rising was set to

ORIGINS begin, MacNeill published a countermanding order in the Sunday Independent newspaper, and more than half of the Irish volunteers who had been expected to mobilise stayed at home. Despite the rumours that the rising was off, hundreds of men and women still made their way into Dublin city centre, including members of the Irish volunteers, the Irish citizen army and the Cumann na mBan (‘League of Women’).

During the weeks leading up to the rising, the Proclamation of the Irish Republic had been written by the teacher, barrister and poet Patrick Pearse, with help from Thomas MacDonagh and Thomas Clarke, who then went on to sign it. The other four signatories were Sean MacDiarmada, Eamonn Ceannt, Joseph Plunkett and James Connolly.

On Easter Monday 1916, a small band of rebels including poets, teachers, actors and workers gathered in Dublin, intent on establishing an Independent Irish Republic and an end to 700 years of British rule. Pearse and Connolly led 200 men and women out of Liberty Hall to head for the General Post Office on O’Connell Street, which became the headquarters of the rebellion. One of the founding members of the Irish volunteers Michael O’Rahilly, (known as The O’Rahilly), drove to the General Post Office to join Pearse and Connolly in the fight, despite his fears that the rising was destined to fail. Plunkett divided Dublin into strategic garrisons, each with its own dedicated band of rebels, whilst the Cumann na mBan acted as messengers by bringing dispatches from the General Post Office to the other garrisons around the city. At daybreak on Tuesday, unknown to the rebels, British soldiers made their way up Kildare Street to set up a machine gun on the top floor of a hotel and open fire into the rebel trenches below. By the morning there were over 6,000 British troops in Dublin, and by Tuesday night thousands more soldiers were on their way to Ireland. British military might was directed on to Dublin. On Wednesday, these British soldiers landed at South Dublin’s Kingston Harbour.

An image of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic

ORIGINS It was not long before the British were being shot at by the rebels from their outpost at Clanwilliam House. The British were not aware of where the firing was coming from, as it echoed off the houses of the street, and by the time they had traced the fire, 230 British soldiers were dead or wounded, whilst the rebels had only lost four men. By Thursday afternoon the city centre was a battle zone, and James Connolly was shot in his ankle while setting up new outposts in the area around the General Post Office. Ultimately, strategic control rested with Sean MacDermott and Tom Clarke.

At the heart of Dublin, the Four Courts was by far the strongest location that the rebels held, with commander Ned Daly. In order to isolate the rebels at the Four Courts, the British drove a wedge between them and the General Post Office, so Daly and his men were alone. Meanwhile on O’Connell Street the assault intensified, and fire spread from building to building on the densely packed commercial street. 4,000 British troops began to head towards O’Connell Street. The reason for placing the headquarters at the General Post Office was because the rebels could see the British coming, however this view was now blocked by the fires. By Friday morning there were 20,000 British troops in Dublin against 2,000 rebels. Accepting the grim reality of their situation, Sean MacDermott decided to order the withdrawal from the outposts around the General Post Office as

A map of Dublin including the location of the Four Courts and General Post Office

fires engulfed it.

O’Rahilly was killed whilst trying to move his men down Moore Street to set up a position to provide cover for the next wave of rebels abandoning the General Post Office. Having failed to get down Moore Street, O’Rahilly’s men took cover in nearby lanes and houses. Pearse and the other rebel leaders evacuated the burnt-out shell of the Post Office, moving away under heavy fire whilst carrying the injured James Connolly on a stretcher. The British soldiers made slow progress as they came under intense rebel fire, until they decided to bore through the walls of adjacent buildings to advance along the street and avoid their fire. That night, the British executed 15 men, although they had first claimed that they were shooting only those identified as rebels, these casualties were innocent civilians.

In a building on Moore Street, Pearse saw 3 old men lying dead with white flags in their hands, which according to Sean MacDermott was the moment that Pearse decided to save the lives of further civilians by calling an end to the rising. Nurse Elizabeth O’Farrell carried the message of surrender

ORIGINS

The ruins of the General Post Office in Dublin

to General Lowe in which Pearse requested fair conditions for his men. Lowe refused his offer, he accepted nothing but an unconditional surrender, so Pearse met Lowe at the top of Moore Street, presenting his sword and with it the formal unconditional surrender of the provisional Irish government and the Irish Republican army. The Irish Republic had lasted for just six days.

During the six days of the uprising, Dublin was reduced to ruins and more than 500 people were killed: some 70 rebels, 140 soldiers and at least 300 civilians. After the rising, Ireland was governed under martial law by British General Maxwell, who was not merciful. He sent the volunteers to prison camps whilst the leaders faced a more extreme punishment: they were court martialed and if found guilty, would face death. By the 11th of May, Edward Daly, Michael O’Hanrahan, Joseph Plunkett, Pearse’s younger brother Willie, Con Colbert, Éamonn Ceannt, Sean Heuston, Michael Mallin, James Connolly and Sean MacDermott had been executed.

Despite its failure to create a long-lasting independent Irish Republic, the Easter Rising of 1916 was one of the most significant cultural awakenings in Irish history, as it proved that the Irish could and would strike for their freedom.

By Jemima

ORIGINS

Irish War of Independence 1919-1921 In December 1918, republican party Sinn Fein decisively won the Irish vote in the General Election, taking 73 seats out of 105. They formed a breakaway government (Dáil Eireann) and declared an Irish Republic which first met in January 1919, despite the fact that only 27 members were able to attend as most of the eligible MPs were imprisoned. On the same day that the Dáil first met, IRA volunteers Dan Breen and Sean Treacy carried out an unauthorized ambush and killed two RIC (Royal Irish Constabulary) officers, Patrick O’Connell and James McDonnell at Soloheadbeg. The volunteers had planned to seize the explosives the officers were escorting and claimed that the officers aimed their rifles when asked to surrender. This marked the beginning of what is now known as the Irish War of Independence.

In the aftermath, despite both the Catholic church and many locals condemning the ambush, the IRA carried out a series of attacks and ambushes on RIC officers and barracks. Having said this, during the early part of the conflict, roughly from 1919 to the middle of 1920, there was a relatively limited amount of violence. Much of the nationalist campaign involved mobilisation and the creation of a republican "state within a state" in opposition to British rule. In April 1919, when Eamon de Valera was appointed president of Dáil Eireann, he issued a statement in effect condoning all IRA acts, saying that: "There is in Ireland at this moment only one lawful authority, and that authority is the elected Government of the Irish Republic”. Following this, on April 11th, Dáil Eireann passed a motion calling on Irish people to boycott the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). This proved successful in demoralising the force as the war went on, as people turned their faces from a force increasingly compromised by association with British government repression. The rate of resignation went up and recruitment in Ireland decreased significantly. Shops and other businesses refused to deal with the RIC so they were often reduced to buying food at gunpoint. Occurring at the same time, from 5-19 April, was the “Limerick Soviet”, a general strike against the declaration of a "Special Military Area" under the Defence of the Realm Act. The “Special Military Area” covered most of Limerick and would have required permits, issued by the RIC, to enter the city. The Limerick Soviet was one of several Irish soviets declared between 1919 and 1923.

Starting in September 1919 in Fermoy County Cork, an unofficial government policy of reprisals began following an armed raid by the local IRA on a church parade which ended with the first British army fatality in Ireland since the 1916 rising. In revenge, 200 British soldiers looted and burned several commercial buildings in Fermoy. This marked the start of the British forces trying to re-assert their control over the country by resorting to indiscriminate retaliation against both republican activists and civilians.

The British increased the use of force; reluctant to deploy the regular British Army into the country in greater numbers, they instead deployed groups of ex-First World War soldiers to act as paramilitary police, the first of whom arrived on 5 March 1920. The combination of the black police uniforms and the tan army outfits gave rise to the term ‘Black and Tans ’for these men. The Black and Tans were undisciplined and often shot innocent civilians in reprisal for attacks on them, giving them a bad reputation and helping to strengthen local support for the IRA. The Tans burned and sacked numerous small towns in Ireland in retaliation for IRA actions during the summer of 1920. In July 1920, the Auxiliaries, a quasi-military police force made up of about 2,200 former British army officers, arrived in Ireland. The Auxiliary Division had a reputation just as bad as the Tans for their mistreatment of the civilian population but tended to be more effective and more willing to take on the IRA. April saw further escalation in the conflict as rioting erupted in Limerick with the crowd throwing stones and bottles and the troops reacting with the use of rifles and bayonets, firing indiscriminately. On the 3rd April, the IRA burned over 300 abandoned RIC barracks

ORIGINS in rural areas to prevent them from being used again, along with almost 100 income tax offices.

However, despite the scale of the destruction, they did not let up, destroying 150 more barracks on the night of the 5th. The RIC then withdrew from much of the countryside, leaving it in the hands of the IRA. Alongside the armed campaign, there was significant passive resistance including hunger strikes by prisoners. There was also a boycott by Dublin dock workers who refused to handle war material on behalf of the British; they were soon joined by members of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. Despite hundreds of sackings, the strike continued. Eventually, train drivers were brought over from England after Irish railway workers refused to drive trains carrying British troops. Not only were workers boycotting, but jurors also refused to attend hearings all across the south and west of Ireland, which meant that trials by jury could not be held. The collapse of the court system demoralised the RIC and many police resigned or retired. As a replacement for the RIC, the Irish Republican Police (IRP) was founded between April and June 1920, under the authority of Dáil Éireann to enforce the ruling of the Dáil Courts, set up under the Irish Republic. By 1920, the IRP had a presence in 21 of Ireland's 32 counties. In response, under the leadership of Lloyd George, the British government passed the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act in August 1920, giving special powers to the police and military and replacing the trial by jury for those areas where IRA activity was prevalent.

Violence intensified steadily from that summer in 1920, and sharply after November 1920 until July 1921. The sharp escalation in November can be attributed to a particular day: on November 21, 1920, the IRA, led by Michael Collins, concluded the war was not having the desired effect and decided to intensify the war. IRA units in Dublin, therefore, launched a mass assassination attack on British Intelligence officers, killing 11 men and wounding 5. In retaliation, a group of Black and Tans fired into a crowd of civilians at a football match in Croke Park, Dublin. 14 people were killed, and the day became known as Bloody Sunday. Ten days later, a patrol of 17 Black and Tans was shot dead in an IRA ambush in Cork and, shortly after that, much of Cork city centre was destroyed in a fire set

by Crown forces.

During the following eight months until the Truce of July 1921, the conflict inflicted a huge death toll, with 1,000 people including the RIC police, army, IRA volunteers and civilians, being killed in the months between January and July 1921 alone. This represents about 70% of the total casualties for the entire three-year conflict. In addition, 4,500 IRA personnel (or suspected sympathisers) were imprisoned at this time. In the middle of this violence, de Valera (as President of Dáil Éireann) acknowledged the state of war with Britain in March 1921.

However, the fighting was eventually brought to an end on July 11, 1921, when a truce was negotiated between British and Irish Republican forces so that talks on a political settlement could begin. After four months of negotiations, in December 1921, an Irish delegation, led by Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith, signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty. This replaced the Dublin Home-Rule Act of 1912 and disestablished the Irish Republic of 1919, instead creating the Irish Free State which was much more independent- having its own army, although it would remain within the British Commonwealth.

Britain would also have a representative in Ireland and would keep some naval bases in Irish waters.

The UK was renamed ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to reflect the change.

By Lara

ORIGINS

The Irish Civil War 1922 The Irish Civil War lasted between 1922 and 1923, it was a conflict between Irish nationalists regarding the contentious Anglo-Irish Treaty. The Treaty was the result of building political tension and guerrilla warfare by the Irish Republican movement, organised by Sinn Féin and the Irish Republican Army between 1918 and 1921. Sinn Féin was the party that won the general election in 1918 on the premise that they would withdraw from the British parliament, declare an Irish Republic and secede from the British Empire.

The truce was arranged between British and Irish republican forces in July 1921 and was signed on 6th December 1921. The Treaty did enable Ireland, now the Irish Free State, a significant amount of independence, as well as the British military garrison withdrawing from the country. However, Irish nationalists and republicans felt this treaty to be a regression as it dissolved the declared Republic (1918) and Irish members of parliament had to swear allegiance to the British monarchy. The settlement was passed in January 1922 by the Dail (the republican government), but the President of the Republic, Eamon de Valera, resigned in protest.

What actually led to the civil war was the splitting of ranks in the Irish Republican Army. Michael Collins began to build a new National Army which was made up of pro-Treaty IRA units from February 1922. The IRA then called a convention in March 1922 where the majority rejected the rights of the Dail to dissolve the Republic. The two sides argued over who would occupy the city of Limerick which almost resulted in an outbreak of violence. Following this, an Anti-Treaty IRA group headed by Rory O’Connor, occupied the centre of the courts system, the Four Courts in open defiance of the Provisional Government and Treaty. Collins was able to temporarily avoid violence by allying himself with de Valera, reuniting Sinn Féin. A similar arrangement was made with the Anti-Treaty IRA which proposed joint operations against Northern Ireland.

The first elections were held in the Free State in June 1922 where Collins ’Sinn Féin won a majority of the seats. However, just before the elections, the pact between the pro and anti-treaty sides had collapsed due to the inclusion of the British monarch in the Free State’s Constitution.

Just over a week later, a series of events led to civil war from the tensions over the Treaty. A retired general was shot by two IRA members, who were later hanged. Britain blamed the IRA in the Four Courts and threatened to attack this body with 6000 British troops who were still in Dublin. Pro-treaty forces also arrested anti-Treaty IRA officer, Leo Henderson, and the Four Courts garrison responded by abducting JJ Ginger O’Connell, a Free State officer.

Collins and the Provisional Government gave the Four Courts a final chance to return O’Connell or else they would invade the Four Courts. The garrison did not, and the pro-Treaty troops opened fire on the Courts with weapons borrowed from the British on June 28, 1922. This resulted in IRA units across the nation to take sides, with most supporting the anti-Treaty side, now led by Liam Lynch.

Both sides pushed narratives about the other to ascertain their positions. The pro-Treaty group stated that the Dail had voted for the Treaty which was representative of the population’s views as shown in the election of June 1922. They pushed a pro-democracy stance and those who had gone against them, opposed the will of the people.

The ‘anti-Treatyites ’claimed that the Treaty had been imposed because of the British threat of war, and therefore could not be a free vote with the threat of Britain looming. They also said that the Treaty was not representative of true Irish freedom and the Provisional Government was solely doing Britain’s bidding.

ORIGINS After a week’s fighting, pro-Treaty forces took Dublin amongst other towns previously held by the anti-Treatyites. By the end of August, the pro-Treaty forces had taken all of the anti-Treatyites ’ strongholds. The pro-Treaty units had won.

The anti-Treaty IRA launched a guerrilla war campaign against the Free State in response to this and killed Collins in an ambush in August 1922. The campaign resulted in huge losses to the National Army and disrupted the establishment of the new government. The government began to execute captured guerrillas in an attempt to eviscerate the campaign. This resulted in the anti-Treaty units assassinating pro-Treaty member of Parliament, Sean Hales. In return, four IRA leaders were executed; between 77 and 81 republicans were officially executed, with another 100-150 assassinated.

The worst instance of this was a bomb that went off in Kerry, killing 5 National Army soldiers. Within a week, 17 prisoners were tied to landmines which were detonated.

By Spring of 1923, the republican attacks mainly consisted of destruction of property, like railway lines and around 12,000 of them had been imprisoned. After Lynch was killed, Frank Aiken took over and called a ceasefire and ordered the remaining troops to “dump arms” and return home in May 1923. A formal end to the war was never negotiated as there was no surrender called.

The result was enormous tension and polarisation between the two sides and most imprisoned republicans were not released until 1924.

By Emma

ORIGINS

Ireland Act 1949 To gain a deeper understanding of the 1949 Ireland Act and its significance, one must begin by examining the historical context. The External Relations (Executive Authority) Act was passed in 1936; it was momentous for British-Irish relations and also potentially the wider consequences for the British empire. The Act stipulated that the role of the British Crown was now separate from the internal affairs of the Free State, yet it ensured that Ireland retained an external link with the British Empire.

This legislation remained in force for the next 12 years until the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which declared that “Ireland may be officially described as the Republic of Ireland and vested in the President of Ireland the power to exercise the executive authority of the state in its external relations, on the advice of the Government of Ireland”. Essentially, the last remaining statutory role of the British monarch was abolished. Prior to 1948 the monarchy was still included in bureaucratic diplomatic procedures such as the issuance and acceptance of letters of credence, whereas post-1948 the President of Ireland now executed these functions. However, the most critical section of the Act was that it clarified Ireland’s place in the Commonwealth. Whilst the Irish Taoiseach, his government and the Irish opposition leaders had ratified the Act in 1948 upholding the belief: Ireland did not have a King, it hadn’t been a member of the Commonwealth since 1936 and Ireland was already a republic.

The Act would simply be a “clarification of [Ireland's] constitutional status”; these views were not shared by other Commonwealth members. The members still considered Ireland as a forming part of “His Majesty’s dominions”. Prior to the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, many Irish leaders frequently declared Ireland was a republic and only associated with the Commonwealth, officials from other nations did not acknowledge this. This was because Britain and the other Commonwealth governments stated the opposite; they were "[still] prepared to treat...Ireland, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” Thus, the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948 provided the global community unwavering clarity as to Ireland’s relationship with the Commonwealth. Moreover, Ireland decided not to reapply for Commonwealth membership, unlike India who desired to remain a member even after independence.

The Ireland Act of 1949 was created to deal with the consequences of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. It was devised to deal with Ireland’s new constitutional status as a Republic, predominantly focusing on the legal ramifications and territorial integrity. The most fundamental section outlined that for the purposes of British law it would not be treated as a foreign country, regarding laws around citizenship, voting rights and electoral law.

The legalities and questions surrounding citizenship were perhaps what made the Ireland Act so notable - the Act was used by the UK to “repair an omission in the British Nationality Act, 1948”.

The British Nationality Act was passed to establish the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Ireland left the Commonwealth on 18 April 1949. Irish citizens automatically lost Britishsubject status on 1 January 1949 unless they acquired citizenship of Britain or that of another Commonwealth country.

However, certain provisions were made for particular citizens. The Act stated that Irish citizens who were British subjects prior to 1949 could apply at any time to the Secretary of State to maintain their British subject status (of course applications were based on a specific set of guidelines and criteria).

Meanwhile, Irish citizens born in the Republic of Ireland after 1948 had no constructed provision for the retention of a British nationality. Also, British subject status was no longer transmissible by descent - the law stated that if you were born after 1948 you weren’t eligible. Furthermore, for the purposes of the nationality act, it defined “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

ORIGINS on its post-1922 borders, therefore, if you were born before 1922 in the part of Ireland that became the Irish Free State, you could not be granted UK citizenship.

There were many changes to legislation across a short period of time which created an atmosphere of instability. Even the British government claimed to misunderstand the citizenship of Irish people, realising that although the 1948 Act included provisions dealing specifically with the position of "a person who was a British subject and a citizen of Eire on 31st December 1948”. This resulted in the British law being dependent on Irish law, as clarification was needed regarding who was deemed a “citizen of Eire”. However, the British Nationality Act overlooked this and many people in Northern Ireland were in theory dispossessed of a British citizenship status that they would have otherwise enjoyed under Irish law.

Additionally, the Ireland Act of 1949 clarified all of this confusion, demystified and dealt with the consequences of the British Nationality Act. To summarise the amendments made in the 1949 Act said that, “regardless of the position under Irish law, the affected persons domiciled in Northern Ireland on 6 December 1922 would not be deprived of a British citizenship status they would otherwise have enjoyed but for Irish law”.

The reaction to the Ireland Act was outrage. Nationalists on both sides of the border were frustrated because it essentially guaranteed that the partition (the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the UK) would continue.

These laws and acts, questions around citizenship and territory may all seem irrelevant to the 21st century, but this is untrue. Brexit ensured that the Ireland Act is still relevant today. Under the Act, Irish people residing in the UK are described as “non-foreign” meaning they uphold a special status, unlike other EU countries. Moreover, the Act enforced that Northern Ireland would never leave the UK unless it had consent and assured that Northern Ireland’s social securities and schemes would be kept on a par with Britain’s. So when the UK voted to leave the EU and article 50 was invoked, the rights of European citizens to live and work in the UK were no longer guaranteed. In the immediate wake of Brexit in 2016 this raised questions regarding whether the Ireland Act needed to be reexamined because the Act was in place prior to the establishment of the EU, of which Ireland remains a member. Now in 2021 with Britain officially leaving the EU on 31 December 2020, whilst questions about Northern Ireland’s constitutional future still persist, there is no question of the historical importance of the Ireland Act of 1949.

By Megan

ORIGINS

The Troubles The Troubles, despite lasting only thirty years, were undeniably instrumental in provoking lasting change in Ireland; irrevocably altering the landscape of Irish politics and culture. A violent conflict, the Troubles lasted from 1968 to 1998 and divided Northern Ireland both physically and spiritually, between the Protestant unionists, who wished to remain part of the United Kingdom, and the Roman Catholic nationalists who wanted Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic of Ireland. Both sides regarded the conflict differently; the nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA) viewed the conflict as a guerrilla war fought for independence whereas the Unionist paramilitary forces denounced the IRA’s acts as a form of terrorism.

The conflict had arguably been in the making as early as the 12th century, during which the AngloNorman invasion left English settlers in Ireland, whose descendants became known as the ‘Old English’. From this point onwards until the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the spectre of English governance would cast a long shadow over Irish autonomy. When in 1922, Northern Ireland began to function as a self-governing region of the United Kingdom, the fractious nature of Northern Ireland became only more apparent. At this stage, two thirds of its population (roughly 1 million people) were Protestant, while one third (roughly 500,000 people) were Catholic. Such blatant numerical disparity quickly resulted in a social inequality, as evidenced by the Ulster Unionist Party’s (UUP) ascendancy in government due to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. This was only cemented by the gerrymandering of electoral districts, which served to diminish catholic representation. Furthermore, the decision to restrict voting rights to the taxpaying heads of households and their spouses resulted in an additional reduction of Catholic rights and purview in governance, which tended to be larger and more likely to include unemployed adult children than those of Protestant background. There is evidence that Catholics were additionally discriminated against in terms of the distribution of public housing, investment in neighbourhoods, and appointments to public service. Moreover, they were more likely to be subjected to police harassment by the Protestant dominated RUC and Ulster Special Constabulary.

But political and cultural differences penetrated deeper than religious divides. Not only was it illegal to fly the flag of the Irish republic, both Irish history and the Irish language were excluded from schools ’syllabuses in Northern Ireland. Additionally, from 1956 to 1974, Sinn Féin, the party that embodied Irish republicanism, was banned. Whilst Catholics on the whole identified as Irish and wished for Northern Ireland to be merged with Irish State, the majority of Protestants sought to retain their cultural heritage and ascendancy in Northern Ireland, hence opposing the unification of Ireland.

Said Protestants, who identified as British, conveyed their ideals through the formation of Protestant unionist organisations such as the Orange Order, which was based on King William III’s victory over his Catholic predecessor, James II, at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.

This inequality created fundamental underlying tensions in Northern Ireland that would eventually be the cause of the Troubles. The Education Act passed in 1947 increased educational opportunities for all Northern Irish citizens, and was highly significant in creating a generation of well-educated Irish Catholics in the 1960s who expected to be treated more fairly. The prevalence of political activism at this point throughout Europe (the Prague Spring, and events of May 1968 in France), undoubtedly buoyed this movement. Ultimately these factors resulted in the formation of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), an organisation that would become notorious in a matter of decades for its radical methods of achieving Northern Irish independence.

ORIGINS Although the exact date is contested among historians, it is generally acknowledged that the Troubles began on October 5th, 1968, in Derry, amid a march organised by the NICRA to protest gerrymandering and discrimination against Catholics. The NICRA’s decision to carry out the march in spite of it previously being forbidden from occurring (after unionists announced that they would be holding a counterdemonstration) resulted in a violent suppression of the protestors by the RUC with batons and a water cannon. A march held by Protestant loyalists in Londonderry on August 12th, 1969, contributed further to the rising tensions in Northern Ireland, when a clash between nationalists and the RUC resulted in two days of rioting.

There were, admittedly, steps taken by the government to address the ubiquitous unrest throughout Northern Ireland. More equitable electoral boundaries were drawn, discrimination in housing and employment in the public sector against Catholics was addressed, in addition to the B specials being decommissioned. Simultaneously, the government implemented measures designed to curb the chaos within Northern Ireland, including imprisonment without trial. Despite these efforts, discrimination did not cease, in that the overriding majority of those arrested were Catholic nationalists.

Throughout the 1970s, rioting spread uninhibited through Belfast and Derry, and the frequency of bombings by both sides increased. Emblematic of this era in Northern Ireland were “peace walls” composed of brick or steel, some rising up to 45 feet high, which were utilised to segregate loyalist and republican communities. When on January 30th, 1972, British paratroopers fired on Catholic civil rights demonstrators in Londonderry, it became evident that the crisis had reached a dire stage. 13 people were killed and 14 injured (one of whom later died), in what would become known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. The highly controversial incident as to which side was responsible for the massacre was not fully resolved until 2010, when the Saville Report concluded that the shooting of demonstrators by British forces had been unprovoked and thus could not be justified.

The escalating chaos in Northern Ireland resulted in the British government’s unilateral reinstatement of English rule and authority over Northern Ireland, and in March 1972, the suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament. The deadliest single year of conflict, 1972, saw the deaths of more than 480 people. On the 21st of July, ‘Bloody Friday’, the detonation of 24 bombs by the Provos in Belfast killed 9 people and injured dozens more. From the mid 1970s onwards, the IRA shifted its emphasis from direct confrontation with British troops to secretive guerrilla operations, which involved the bombing of British cities. Loyalist groups simultaneously began bombing Ireland. Though there was potential for a resolution posed by the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973. Its provision to create a new Northern Ireland Assembly with proportional representation for all parties, but the treaty was never implemented after loyalists staged a general strike in May 1974. The strike not only brought the country to a halt, but resulted in a return to direct English rule; a system of governance that would last 25 years. Throughout the 1970s, assassinations and bombings continued. From the killing of Lord Mountbatten, a member of the monarchy, in August 1979, to the opening of the Maze prison, which marked the change in perception of members of the IRA from prisoners of war to criminals, the conflict between the English and Irish governments grew increasingly more fraught and violent.

It was only after an IRA bomb attack staged in October 1984 on the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton that killed 5 people and threatened Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s life, that the first steps towards resolution of the conflict were made. In November 1985, Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, under which both countries established that a change in status of Northern Ireland could only come about if sanctioned by the majority of Northern Irish citizens. Despite the initial progress that was made, peace was not wholly reached until the Good Friday agreement, signed in Belfast on April 10th, 1998, which put an end to the bombings, assassinations and rioting between Protestants, Catholics, and British police and troops that had

ORIGINS continued into the early 1990s. The treaty established the implementation of three primary ideas: the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, an arrangement for cooperation between the Irish and Northern Irish governments, and a sustained consultation between the British and Irish governments.

The approval of the treaty by the Irish people in a referendum (94% of voters in Ireland and 71% in Northern Ireland) heralded the start of a new era, and an end to a conflict that had claimed an estimated 3600 lives, and had inflicted damage upon thousands more.

By Schuyler

ORIGINS

20th Century Anti Irish Sentiment Irish immigrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were once understood as one of the main victims of British colonial exploitation and its corresponding forms of racial discrimination.

However, amidst calls to increase awareness of the manifestations of colonialism and its effects, the Irish story is one seldom represented.

Ignorance of the Irish experience of prejudice is exemplified by the mainstream reaction to the assertion made by Joe, the male protagonist in the 2002 film Bend it Like Beckham, that he understands Jess ’experience of verbal harassment because he’s Irish. There is a bifurcation of responses to this by Gen-Z viewers. On the one hand, some say he is equating anti-brown racism to anti-Irish prejudice, thereby trivializing the reality of being a person of colour in Britain. On the other hand, the conception of this comment as incongruous speaks to the insensibility of Gen Zers to the Irish experience of racism, and the historical background it is informed by.

There is little literature on Irish migration by sociologists principally because they tend to focus on race and visible differences. Irish migrants are not seen as “proper” migrants because of their ostensible whiteness, meaning they do not fit into the sociology of “race relations”, as defined by official discourses (Hickman & Ryan, 2020). Furthermore, cultural differences have been denied due to the Irish being a ‘British Isles ’population group (Keeffe, n.d.).

Nonetheless, an analysis of nineteenth-century attitudes shows that the Irish Catholic constituted the significant outgroup in the construction of the British national identity (Hickman & Walter, 1995).

The Irish Catholic was othered because its status comprised the discourse of the colonial subject.

Furthermore, Irish migration in the 19th century occurred at a critical moment for the successful securing of national identity, culture, and class alliance in Britain (Hickman & Walter, 1995).

According to Benedict Anderson, the notable Irish political scientist, national unity is contingent upon, and defined by, an inherently limited “imagined community”: bound by a shared history, language, ethnicity, and religion. The imagined community of the British was defined by Protestantism, hence the discourse around the Irish Catholic Other was heavily influenced by perceptions of Roman Catholics- the salient Other in English nationalism since the sixteenth century.

Hence, anti-Irish prejudice and anti-Catholicism contributed to a “complex categorizing of the Irish in nineteenth-century Britain” (Hickman, 1995). Likewise, racial hibernophobia - theories postulating the racial distinctness of Irish people from their Anglo-Saxon neighbours - was important in the redefinition of British national identity during the economically and politically fraught inter-war years (Douglas, 2002).

In today’s Critical Theory paradigm of activism, the Irish hold white privilege, which results in antiIrish bigotry often being regarded as an aberration (Patterson, 2020). However, whiteness is inherently a social fabrication, subject to changes in categorisation and internal hierarchies. Indeed,

A discriminatory sign put up in a ‘B&B’

ORIGINS in his seminal book, How the Irish Became White, Ignatiev posits the acceptance of the Irish into the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant establishment as evidence of whiteness as a social construct with mutable boundaries (Kang, 2019). Hence, some proffer that “Irish immigrants experienced no whiteskinned privilege” in the 19th century (Cherry, 2020). Despite the contestation around the demarcation of ‘whiteness’, there is evidence of anti-Irish sentiment in the 19th, and 20th centuries, with some maintaining “the unsettling pattern of discrimination and abuse” persists (O'Brien, 2021).

Referred to as the Blacks of Europe in the United States, the Irish were conspicuously exploited. The potato famine of 1845 incited an exodus of millions of surviving Irish. Because of the “complex set of social conditions created by British landowners” (Nittle, 2021), whereby they were reluctant to diverge from laissez-faire capitalism and provide aid, many ended up in the United States. However, a change of circumstance did not assuage their plight. Stereotypes of the Irish as lazy, stupid, and violent proliferated. And jarringly, Southern plantations consigned Irish labourers to their most arduous jobs, rather than risk the lives of enslaved Black people (Cherry, 2020).

In the aftermath of the Second World War, labour shortages in Britain gave rise to mass migration, facilitated by labour recruitment schemes. However, this meant popular representations of the Irish migrant spread, with ‘Paddy ’the labourer often used derogatorily to describe Irish men. He was presented as a rough, roguish figure, congruent with generalisations of the Irish as heavy, unskilled labourers, often within the construction industry.

To conclude, anti-Irish racism is rooted in colonial racism, Anglo-Irish relations and the construction of the Irish Catholic as ‘Other’. The race relations paradigm of sociology has framed anti-Irish discrimination with the erroneous myth of British homogeneity, implicitly assuming assimilation.

Conversely, anti-Irish stereotypes persist both in British and American society, the former having been triggered by anti-IRA fears over the last thirty years. This means there is still a chronic tension between real integration and the assertion of an easeful Irish identity in Britain.

By Karel

ORIGINS

1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement & Creation of the Northern Assembly The Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement due to its signing on Good Friday, 10th April 1988, is a multilateral agreement between the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain, and the eight main political groups in Northern Ireland. It ended most of the violence of the Troubles, the political conflict in Northern Ireland ensuing from the 1960s, and it was the basis on which the present devolved system of government in Northern Ireland was created.

The Agreement was approved by voters across Ireland in two referendums held on 22nd May 1998.

In Northern Ireland, voters were asked in the 1998 Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement referendum whether they supported the multi-party agreement. In the Republic of Ireland, voters were asked whether they would let the state sign the agreement and thus allow the necessary constitutional amendments to be made to facilitate it. This led to the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. The Agreement came into force on 2nd December 1999 and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was the only major political group in Northern Ireland to oppose the Agreement.

The talks were led by the leaders of the two governments, with Tony Blair as the prime minister of Great Britain and Bertie Ahern as leader of the Republic of Ireland. The discussions were chaired by US special envoy George Mitchell and were aimed at creating an agreement that would resolve differences on political issues through democratic and peaceful means. The Good Friday Agreement ended up recognising the two stances on the issue as legal and valid. These were that the majority of the Northern Irish population wished to be part of the United Kingdom, but also that there was a substantial number of people in NI and a majority in Ireland that wanted a united Ireland. It also left open the question of sovereignty so that future changes could be made if necessary.

The Agreement was made between the British government, Irish government and eight political parties/groupings from Northern Ireland. These parties were divided into political leanings, with three representing unionism: Ulster Unionist Party, Progressive Unionist Party, and Ulster Democratic Party (the latter two were smaller & associated with Loyalist paramilitaries). Two were nationalist; the Social Democratic and Labour Party, and Sinn Féin which was associated with the Provisional Irish Republican Army. The final two were independent of these political divides and they were the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition.

The Agreement had two elements; the first was a treaty between the two states, signed by the leaders of both the Irish and British governments. The second was a more substantial agreement between the 8 Northern Irish political parties and both governments. This second one set out the framework for the creation of institutions across 3 strands which dealt with separate issues.

The first strand dealt with the creation of a democratically elected assembly. It established the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was a devolved legislature with mandatory cross-community voting on major decisions; and the Northern Ireland Executive, a power-sharing executive with ministerial portfolios allocated between parties through the D’Hondt method.

The second strand dealt with North/South Issues and problems between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It established the North/South Ministerial Council which was made up of ministers from Northern Ireland Executive and Government of Ireland; and the North/South InterParliamentary Association. This was created in October 2012 as part of the Agreement where both governments agreed to consider creating a joint parliamentary forum, made up of equal numbers from each. It also created the North/South Consultative Forum; the Northern Irish political parties who

ORIGINS endorsed the Agreement were asked to consider the establishment of an independent consultative forum which would be representative of civil society. Members would have expertise in social, cultural, economic, and other issues, and would be appointed by the two administrations. The outline structure was agreed in 2002; and in 2006, NI Executive agreed to support its establishment.

Lastly, the third strand dealt with East-West issues between Ireland & Great Britain. It created the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference which replaced the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference created under the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreements. It takes the form of regular meetings between British and Irish ministers to promote cooperation on all levels between governments. It also established the British-Irish Council which is made up of ministerial representatives from British & Irish governments, the UK’s devolved administrations (Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales) & Crown dependencies, Isle of Man, Jersey & Guernsey. Finally, it expanded the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body.

The Good Friday Agreement was instrumental in resolving the political Troubles and setting up the current devolved government in Northern Ireland. Considering the many years of broken ceasefires, this Agreement was a sign of change towards political stability and a diminishing of violence.

By Keira

ORIGINS

What was the cause of Ireland's Rapid Economic Growth?

From 1994 - 2007, Ireland underwent the Celtic Tiger period, coined by Kevin Gardiner, which referred to the period of rapid economic development undergone by the Republic of Ireland. It was primarily fueled by foreign direct investment; however, it was also aided by many other factors.

Experts are able to definitively state that by the end of 2007, in per capita purchasing power terms, the national output of the Republic of Ireland was estimated to be 10 percent higher than that of Western Europe, and about 20 percent higher than the EU. Undoubtedly the Celtic Tiger period was extremely beneficial for Ireland, however, the specifics surrounding why and how it occurred are discussed at length by many.

In January 1988, the Economist published an article titled ‘Poorest of the Rich ’alongside a survey of Ireland and a photo of a young girl begging on the side of a street. Below is an excerpt from the survey, “Take a tiny, open, ex-peasant economy. Place it next door to a much larger one . . . Infuse it with a passionate desire to enjoy the same lifestyle . . . Inevitable result: extravagance, frustration, debt. Ireland today is bravely facing up to the consequences of a decade of borrowing to pay for better public services than its wealth justified. Its citizens, many of whom have already endured six years of stagnant real incomes, are just beginning to come to terms with the extent to which the country has to change . . . Its gross domestic product is a mere 64% of the European Community average.”

Just nine years later, the Republic of Ireland was the front cover of the Economist, labelled as ‘Europe’s Shining Light’, “Just yesterday, it seems, Ireland was one of Europe’s poorest countries. Today it is as prosperous as the European average, and getting richer all the time.”

People are keen to attribute this success to the marked increase in labour productivity: the output per worker. During the Celtic Tiger period, the output per worker increased by almost one-half, managing to grow over 5 percent each year. This is in comparison to the one-third aggregate increase of those in the European Union.

The Tiger Economy: Alongside a new sense of initiative, Historian R. F. Foster believed the entry of American companies such as Intel aided the economic boom. He elaborated that chief factors regarding this were the low taxation, a younger workforce, and pro-business regulatory policies. Companies and individuals warmed to the prospect of doing business in Ireland due to the generous governmental incentives, as well as the lucrative access to markets in the EU. The low corporation tax rate in Ireland is credited by many economists: the rate of taxation varied from 10 percent to 12.5 percent through the late 1990s, and current successful Irish governments have pursued similar low-taxation policies.

Trade within the European Union: Since joining the EU in 1973, the Republic of Ireland has received over 17 billion euros in EU Structural and Cohesion funds, which was used to increase investment in the education system and to build physical infrastructure. Ireland allocated 35 percent of the structural funds to human resource investments in this period, unlike other cohesion fund recipients who allocated considerably less.

Prior to Ireland joining the EU, its trade had been predominantly with the United Kingdom, under terms that were far less agreeable than those after joining the EU.

ORIGINS Workforce: During the period of the Celtic Tiger, the arrival of close to 300 high-tech industrial projects such as Microsoft, Dell, etc, was a major factor in explaining the growth of the economy. The introduction of these companies led to a fivefold increase in manufacturing output, trembling the volume of exports and virtually quadrupling the reported money value of the average industrial worker's output.

This was coupled with the expansion of the labour force; unemployed people, students, and women who were previously dependent upon another breadwinner for a stable income joined the workforce.

Furthermore, a significant portion of people that had emigrated during the 1980s financial crisis returned back to rejoin the workforce. There was also a delayed baby-boom and children born prior to the 1980s were graduating out of the educational system.

The resources per-capita aided the increase of GDP in the Republic of Ireland as the proportion of workers to dependents was transformed. Prior to the economic revolution, every 100 workers had to support over 220 extra dependents through taxes or duty to their family members. When women and others joined the field there was a decrease in the number of dependents each worker had to support, therefore by 2001 the average worker was simultaneously producing 46 percent more output, and distributing this income amongst 28 percent fewer people, thus meaning that resources per head were doubled in the Celtic Tiger period.

Ireland benefited greatly from the Celtic Tiger period, however, it is of note that this era of prosperity was brought to a halt in the years of the 2008 Financial Crisis, in which Ireland was impacted negatively.

By Zahra

ORIGINS

2010: Ireland’s appeal to the EU and the IMF Like much of the world, the 2008 financial crisis greatly affected Ireland and its economy.

Employment levels were at their lowest, only being surpassed by the Great Depression of the 1930s.

To put into context, one in every seven workers were unemployed by the end of 2010. However, after a period of economic hardship and difficulty, the country’s economy began to grow again, reaching almost full employment in 2017. The recovery from unemployment being just over 15% in 2011 to being less than 1% in 2017 has been widely credited to the partnership between the Irish government, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Union.

Before the recession hit, Ireland was one of the most prosperous countries in the EU. From 1987 to 2007, they had grown from being one of the poorest countries in the EU to one of the fastest-growing economies. This was a product of many factors such as low corporate taxes and a young, welleducated workforce. Having cultivated a business-friendly environment, the country became an attractive site for large corporations such as Coca-Cola, pharmaceutical companies, and internet companies such as Facebook. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were being generated, and immigrants were moving to Ireland. The country was given the nickname, ‘Celtic Tiger’, for being such a rapidly growing economy. This long period of growth was met with rising incomes and cheap credit. In part, this was due to Ireland’s adoption of the Euro in 2002. Because of this, by 2006, the value of property and real estate quadrupled, leading to higher incomes and revenues for many people, including the government. Lending and borrowing were at a high, with people buying multiple properties to let at the same time, loans were being paid out to individuals looking to buy property across Ireland, and homebuyers were taking higher debts relative to their income. This lending expanded the banks ’ assets to five times the country’s GDP. However, as the adage goes, whatever goes up, must go down. This period of growth slowed down in 2007, around the same time when the global economy began to step into the recession. The high demand for property had cooled significantly, and prices began to fall. In 2006, construction accounted for more than 12% of employment. As the county was beginning to face hard times, construction was stopped, leaving many people unemployed. This led to ‘ghost estates’, as the country was filled with unfinished construction projects. To add fuel to the fire, liquidity in the county was drying up, especially the money that was borrowed from overseas investors.

As the recession came to full size, on the 30th of September 2008, the government guaranteed the liabilities of the six major banks of Ireland. This included giving them 30% of the country’s GDP, 46 billion euros, and nationalising two of them. Not only was Ireland facing the Great Recession, but they were also facing the Post-2008 Irish Banking crisis. This crisis was triggered by the recession, where several Irish financial institutions faced possible collapse due to insolvency which is the state of being unable to pay the debts. The Irish government gave out a 64 billion euro bank bailout, deepening the recession in the country. It came to the point where the country’s banks were being kept alive by emergency loans from the European central bank. Worsening the situation, every day gone past made investors less certain about the creditworthiness of the government and the economy.

In November 2010, the Irish government approached the IMF and the EU to help. A ‘troika ’of experts from the IMF, the European Commission, and the European central bank were sent to help fix the crisis. The IMF and the EU provided a total of 67.5 billion euros to the country, and they were to be paid out over the following three years. The primary focus of the institutions was to get the banking systems working again, and restore the health of the market. This was carried out through three stages. The first stage was to identify the banks that remained viable and to restore them to health. Secondly, the experts would then recapitalise the banks, meaning they would provide them with more capital, replace their debt with stock, and strongly encourage them to reply on deposit

ORIGINS inflows and market-based funding. The final stage was to strengthen the supervision of the banks and introduce a bank resolution framework.

On the 27th of July 2016, the IMF analysed the progress and difference in the Irish economy, stating that its rebound was exceptional. Their GDP had been growing successfully, as well as domestic demand and solid export growth.

By Nitya

ORIGINS

Irish Social Law Reforms In just one generation, the attitude of people in Ireland towards homosexuality has drastically changed: from considering homosexuality to be widely unaccepted in the late 1900s to being very tolerant and open-minded in current times. Homosexuality was only decriminalised in Ireland 28 years ago, in 1993, by Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, the former Minister of Justice, making Ireland the last country in the UK to set the path to equality for the LGBTQ+ community. The person who triggered this decriminalisation was David Norris, who went through many different processes before finally achieving his goal of the legalisation of homosexual activity.

First, he appealed to the Attorney General in the Irish High Court in 1980 about the removal of the criminalisation of homosexuality. Norris argued that since the Constitution of Ireland, which is the liberal democratic law of Ireland setting out the national jurisdiction of Irish people, was passed in 1937, the laws introduced in the mid-to-late-1800s that criminalised homosexual activity have not been applicable. One reason why these laws are not applicable is because when they were passed, Ireland was under British rule, and therefore followed the laws enforced by the British. Ireland has since gained independence, meaning that it can now create its own laws based on its own beliefs and values. Another reason why these laws are not applicable is because article 50 of the Constitution of Ireland states, “subject to this Constitution and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent therewith, the laws in force in the Irish Free State immediately prior to the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution shall continue to be of full force and effect”. This means that any laws introduced before the Constitution that contradict its terms, which include the rights of Irish people to partake in homosexual activity, are discontinued. Unfortunately, Norris ’arguments were not enough to persuade the Irish High Court to rule in his favour, so he lost the case. Next, he took it to the Supreme Court of Ireland in 1983. Again, Norris lost the case at a ratio of 2:3 due to his weak responses to the Supreme Court’s arguments of Christian teachings against homosexuality in the Bible, and his weak responses to the requirements of reproduction in Irish society. Finally, Norris appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the Irish laws against homosexual activity were against article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which states that everyone has a right to have respect for their “private and family life,” as long as it is “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. Norris was successful in this appeal, as ruled by the court in 1988, which resulted in the decriminalisation of homosexuality a few years later in 1993.

Despite the fact that homosexual activity was legalised in Ireland in 1993, it was not until 2015 that same-sex marriage was too. A national vote in May 2015 resulted in the modification of the Constitution of Ireland to acknowledge marriage regardless of the sex of both parties involved, known as the Marriage Act. This was signed into law a few months later by President Higgins, after being ratified by the Oireachtas (Legislature of Ireland), and it came into effect on 16th November 2015.

Just one day later, marriages between same sex-couples began to take place. By the end of the first full year in which same-sex marriage was legal, 1,056 marriage ceremonies occurred, with 606 being between men, and 450 between women.

In addition to the homosexuality reforms, Ireland has also vastly changed its laws regarding abortion in recent times. In July 2013, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which set out the situations in which abortion could be legally carried out in Ireland, was ratified by the Oireachtas (Legislature of Ireland), and then signed into law by President Higgins to come into effect in January 2014. This Act legislated the outcomes of the 1992 Attorney General v X Irish Supreme court case, which was that abortion is permitted if a woman’s life is at risk due to pregnancy, including the risk of mental health issues, such as suicide. It is stated that the “unborn” life begins existing at implantation in the uterus, and the reason for this specification is to prevent the criminalisation of emergency

ORIGINS contraception, such as Plan B or treatment of ectopic pregnancy (when embryonic cells implant outside of the uterus, so a baby cannot develop, and the mother’s health may be endangered). A criticism of this law is that it was too subjective, because in order to be legally allowed to have an abortion as a result of the risk of suicide if the pregnancy is continued, a woman must be diagnosed by not one, but 10 physicians who are part of the Health Service Executive. These physicians at the early stages of the abortion rights movement would likely object to it themselves.

In 2018, this law was revoked and replaced with the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which came into effect on 1st January 2019. This new act allowed abortion to be performed by a licensed medical professional in any circumstance before 12 weeks since conception, or later than 12 weeks in situations where continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the mother’s health, or if the baby would be severely disabled. If it is found that a doctor has performed an abortion that does not follow the rules of the Act, or if a woman has lied in order to get an abortion that does not follow the rules of the Act, there is a punishment of a fine or imprisonment for up to 14 years. However, this punishment does not apply to women that attempt (whether successfully or not) to end their pregnancy themselves. This is controversial because it encourages the practice of unsafe and unhygienic abortions by untrained women who do not want to carry to term but also do not fall into the category of women who are legally allowed to get an abortion.

Overall, in recent years, Ireland has hugely ameliorated its laws regarding same-sex marriage and abortion, and even though it has hugely progressed along the pathway of equality, there is still much to do to ensure equality for all.

By Charlotte

ORIGINS

2014 Tax Loopholes Closed, EU Pressure and Impact on Multinationals and Corporations.

In early June in 2014, the European Union moved to close a loophole that allowed multinational companies to lower their tax bills by exploiting differences in national rules. This was in response to the pressure put on Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands about their deals that they cut with corporations such as Starbucks, Fiat and Apple. These corporations were said to have used loopholes to avoid paying taxes by shifting profits into EU countries with lower tax rates, doing this by creating “hybrid loan arrangements” --a combination of equity and debt often used as a tax-planning tool.

The tax-planning tool works by taking advantage of certain provisions in the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, which is meant to ensure cross-border company groups are not taxed twice. Member states introduced tax exemptions in parent countries on profits received by parent companies from their subsidiaries in other European countries. This still applies even if the profits are tax deductible in the subsidiary’s country. That has prompted some multinational companies to open subsidiaries in other member states, so they pay little or no tax.

The situation stems from longstanding issues of finding unanimity among member states about tax law. Small countries have historically fiercely resisted changes to low-tax regimes because they wanted to continue to attract foreign investment while also being wary of driving away big employers.

Other members have welcomed high-tax regimes as, to French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, it ‘means a bit more money in state coffers, which as you know we’re quite keen on. ’The Minister has a valid point: taxation provides revenues for national budgets which are used to prop up the economy and combat social problems. In the context of the EU, taxes are used to support the proper functioning of the single market.

However, the closing of the single loophole in 2014 has not prevented multinational corporations from still being able to avoid paying hundreds of billions of dollars in tax around the world. These companies have essentially been unaffected by the blockage of the tax loophole, as there are plenty of other loopholes for corporations to choose from. Tax havens have become a defining feature of the global finance system. Given the nature of the issue, it is intrinsically difficult to detect tax avoidance or evasion.

On the 15 of March in 2018, MEPs in the European parliament voted in favour of plans to establish a common consolidated corporate tax base, which is a common set of rules that companies operating in the EU could use to calculate their taxable profits instead of having to follow different rules for each EU country they are located in. They voted on two pieces of legislation that will make it harder for companies to shift profits to those EU countries where corporate taxes are lower.

Now, in 2021, the EU has moved to force all multinational corporations to publish a breakdown of the tax they pay to each of the bloc’s member states and in tax havens. Country-by-country reporting is designed to shine a light on how some of the world’s biggest companies – such as Apple, Facebook and Google – avoid paying an estimated $500bn (£358bn) a year in taxes by shifting their profits from higher-tax countries such as the UK, France and Germany to zero-tax or low-tax jurisdictions including Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta. “If large companies have to disclose their profits and taxes paid per country, tax trickery is hardly possible anymore. This is a strong barrier against tax avoidance,” said Sven Giegold, the financial and economic policy spokesperson of the Greens group in the European parliament, while also stating that he hopes the UK follows suit. In the UK, chancellor Rishi Sunak can exercise powers under the Finance Act of 2016 to make multinationals ’country-by-

ORIGINS country reporting data public in the UK, but the government has said it will only do so if there is an international agreement on the issue.

It has been, and will continue to be, a long, arduous path to the eradication of tax evasion in the EU. The closing of the 2014 Tax Loophole was a single step in the way of success, but multinational corporations will continue to evade taxes until there is complete unanimity with tax rules in countries.

By Anya

ORIGINS

2020 political standing of the Irish government, and coalition with the green party Ireland’s general election took place on 8 February 2020. Irish society has undergone intense social, economic, and demographic changes over recent decades, which has created a stark generational divide in voting patterns. The result was unexpected and extraordinary in a number of respects. The left-wing nationalist party, Sinn Féin, for the first time, received the highest share of votes in a general election. The party has been long associated with the nationalist terrorist group the Irish Republican Army, and has led to a massive change to the status quo in the Irish political landscape. Previously Irish politics has been dominated by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael since the foundation of the Irish state in 1922. It can be argued that the Irish party system is even more fragmented than it was in 2016, and the 2020 results are historically among the worst ever for the three established parties.

The result reflected a dissatisfaction among voters, specifically young people, with the circumstances they feel has failed to address poor living standards and failing public services even while the economy was booming. The frustration was driven by anger over a lack of affordable housing, severe homelessness, poverty, and long hospital waiting times. Sinn Féin campaigned on these issues, promising higher taxes for the wealthy and large conglomerates, many of which are based in Dublin.

Its results show the party appears as a less militant nationalist party, and a more socialist party sensitive to the requirements of a young electorate, hungry for change.

However, Sinn Féin did not run enough candidates to fully take advantage of its electoral growth.

The party’s poor showing in the 2019 local elections, along with their perception that the Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, had increased his standing through his management of the Brexit stand-off, prompted it to run a cautious election campaign. As a result, Sinn Féin fell short of the seats needed to form a governing coalition.

Consequently, in June 2020, the two main parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael struck an agreement to govern together for the first time, which began an unpredictable chapter in Irish politics especially as the country unites after the economic outcome from the coronavirus pandemic. The leaders of the parties, Micheál Martin and Leo Varadkar signed off on an agenda for a coalition government that includes the Green Party. They were eager to keep Sinn Fein out of the government.

The new government will face vastly more difficult challenges than either party expected before the election. The leaders agreed to a fiscally expensive stimulus program that will run through 2022 to ‘repair the damage that has been inflicted by the pandemic.’

As a condition of joining the coalition, the Green Party has several policies including the delivery of a Green New Deal: targeting net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, achieving at least 70% renewable electricity by 2030, and undertaking a significant building modification programme, among other policies. They are aiming to aid the world in overcoming its greatest challenge of restoring biodiversity and reversing the effects of climate change in order to be more sustainable socially, economically, and environmentally.

By Anya