Talk:Ireland–United Kingdom relations

Name change proposal

I propose that this article be renamed. The terms "Anglo" suggests specifically English (as in Anglo-Saxon), or the English language when in fact there are more national identities in the United Kingdom (Northern/Irish, Scottish, Welsh etc) than just English. The national description of these peoples is "British".

Further to this, the term "Irish" is ambiguous, as it describes both a nationality (a country) and an ethnicity - the two aren't necessarily the same, though there is a large overlap. --Mal 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In theory, I agree entirely. There is a proposal (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Foreign relations#Bilateral relations) to codify the styles of these pages permanently. I suggest that you support adopting the names of countries and ordering by short name (in this case 'Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom relations).

In this case, even if that is not accepted, I suggest that it be moved to 'British-Irish relations', per your first point and per the category (that I created last year) titled 'British-Irish relations'. Bastin 15:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This was right however using 'anglo-' to mean British is fairly common practice even if by the definition of anglo=England its not entirely right. By other definitions though the vast majority of Scotland and N.Ireland and well over half of Wales are anglo too.--Him and a dog 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironic?

Ireland is represented by orange and the UK is represented by green. That made me smile. No rebuttle required.--Play Brian Moore 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a good post but the map did turn to traditional green & orange colours. I tried to revert (but failed) it to the 'pink' UK version as that is the usual colour in atlases and maps for UK & dominions etc. Perhaps consideration should be discussed? Gavin Lisburn 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin Lisburn (talk • contribs)

The first guy's post was probably the cleverest observation I've seen on this article. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Troubles Section

What is the purpose of having a troubles section if it doesn't actually say much about the troubles?--T*85 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable phrases

Quote Whatever Britain did, Ireland did the opposite was the main policy of previous Irish governments for decades after independence unquote. What a lot of old chuff. I am assuming that the author meant to say that the Irish chose to do some things differently than the British [governments] sometimes on principle alone perhaps. Examples should be given, but the phrase used is annecdotal, unsourced and frankly, totally erroneous. Dainamo (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland???

I noticed this rewrite you did RA:

“ Due to close proximity to each other there have been relations people inhabiting the islands of Great Britain and Ireland for as much as we know of their history. For instance, the Romans, who occupied the lower portion of Great Britain maintained a trading post near the location of modern Dublin. A Romano-Briton call Patrick, later Saint Patrick, christianised Ireland. And following the fall of the Roman Empire, during the Dark Ages, missionaries from Ireland re-christianised Britain. ”

Would the term British Isles be more appropriate? I think its far too general just stating the two main islands of the group. It leaves out the Western Isles, Orkneys, Shetlands, Isle of Man etc. Or should this actually be discussed at the BISE? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Forget the BSIE page. That's just a bear pit and rarely seems too concerned with the development of any article beyond the use or non-use a single term.

There's a case for using "British Isles" (I don't think it is the "OMG - what about the Orkneys!" argument though). But given the topic, I'd say the best perspective is from the position of the relations between the people of "Great Britain" and "Ireland" (individually) rather than within the people of "Britain and Ireland"/"British Isles" (as a group).

Personally, too I'd also avoid "British Isles" on politics-related pages, particularly ones that deal with contemporary politics and particularly ones that have the word "British" in their title. It can get a bit confusing.

However, I'm not inclined to argue forcefully over use or non-use of this term. It already has a bigger deal than it deserves being made out of it elsewhere. --RA (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the BISE was setup for a reason so it should be used, but then again a source is also needed for the statement anyways for verifiability. Whilst i agree BI on political issues is a problem and this article contains a good amount of politics, the section in question however is making a geographical statement with no politics, and it would help include people from the other islands that make up the UK - the Western Isles especially as they have had a very long history with the north-east coast of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about "...the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, and smaller adjacent islands such as Man and the Hebrides..." This paragraph is background information - as I understand the article it's primarily about post-1922 inter-governmental relations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BSIE page was set-up for a reason but that reason was not to act as a central discussion point for use/non-use of the term across the 'pedia. That is simply a role some of the participants there have taken upon themselves. Individual article's talk pages is the place to discuss individual articles content.

Add the term, where you think it is appropriate - just ask yourself before you do so why it is that you want to. If it is it simply so as to use the term, or if it is to give a certain impression about the "natural" relationship between the people of the archipelago, then think twice about it. On the other hand, if it is in the interest of best describing the subject of the article then that will shine through. --RA (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

BISE seems like a personal tug-o-war between LevenBoy and HighKing. No doubt this article no matter what term is used will be brought to BISE at some stage by either one. Thats why its better to source the comment to make any future raising of it over at BISE easier to sort, seeing as its judgements appear to depend on the sources used. I don't have a problem with the use of Great Britain and Ireland where it has due weight, however i feel British Isles does help describe the subject of the section better as it allows for the inclusion of the Western Isles etc. and the ancient relations between whats now the UK and Ireland i believe were strongest at the Western Isles (due to their close proximity to both islands, and long history of Ireland to Scotland and back migration of people and culture).

@ Ghmyrtle - the section in question is mentioning ancient history not post-1922. Also Isle of Man has no real place in it as its not part of the UK and thus not technically relevant when discussing British-Irish relation. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I'm writing a lot and haven't referenced a thing. That probably should be a concern. WRT "British Isles" or "Great Britain and Ireland" (meaning the two islands separately), it could be referenced either way, I imagine, depending on what you want to say.

Just so you know why I made the change I did: I wrote "people of Great Britain and Ireland" as a change from "British and Irish peoples" solely because neither "British" nor "Irish" people existed in the time being talked about (as the words are meant today, at the very least). --RA (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, sure the British of then are not the same as the British of today, seeing British is based on the Anglo-Saxon for Briton which are the Welsh, Cornish, and a few Scots. We could say to avoid the problem is: Due to close proximity to each other there have been relations people inhabiting the islands of what is now Ireland and the United Kingdom for as much as we know of their history. - that way we get to cover all the islands except those that aren't part of either. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good idea. It would never have crossed my mind. Especially good since it keep focus on the topic of the article: the relations between the two modern states.--RA (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Then there we have it, a simple but effective solution :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! found this article! Apples and pears, or is it oranges, comes to mind. LevenBoy (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a tad late, but yes United Kingdom & Ireland (pipelinked to Republic of Ireland) will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what statement LevenBoy is trying to make. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, he'll elaborate. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement Due to close proximity to each other there have been relations people inhabiting the islands of what is now Ireland and the United Kingdom for as much as we know of their history is misleading at best, erroneos at worst. It mixes Ireland, a geographic area, with the UK, a country. LevenBoy (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern over the sentence is more to do with its clunkiness, and grammar. How about: "The people inhabiting the islands that comprise what are now the sovereign states of Ireland and the United Kingdom have interacted with each other since prehistoric times." Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. However i myself feel that Republic of Ireland would sound better as we are talking geography, but as the island of Ireland isn't actually stated in the context, just islands in general, i think the IMOS applies here so Ireland for the state it looks. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles template

A editor has raised the question of removing the ability to pipe link the title of the British Isles template. Currently, on this page, it pipe links as [[British Isles|British Irish Council area]]. The editor would like this ability to be removed.

Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the change of UK to pink on map...

... because the MOS for maps of these sort is green and orange. Admittedly, i's a bit unfortunate in this case. --RA (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is highly unofrtunate lol but its the common style. At least the map matches the legend now. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is highly unfortunate. If agreement can be reached with input from Wikiproject Maps (or someone else) on appropriate alternative colours, I wouldn't oppose it. (And I'd also be happy to customise the template to accept alternative colour values for the legend.) My 2¢ would be to avoid green, orange and pink (or red) altogether as they are symbolic in this case. (Pink/red was the colour of the empire on maps, so should be avoided for the same reasons as orange and green.)

On the other hand, we could just ignore the colours and accept them as the MOS. --RA (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Merged content from Politics in the British Isles

I've merged content from Politics in the British Isles, which has sprung up as a POV fork (in the best possible sense of the word) of this article. It contained some very good text and is a great addition to this article IMO. --RA (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RA. Given the discussion is ongoing, I don't see any point in maintaining two copies of this content. If the AfD results in a merge, then of course this content should be moved over. Until then, let's keep it where it is. Thanks again, and I appreciate the complements on the content of the article.--KarlB (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit war

As per this revision, there had been a revert which resulted in removal of large amount of content without discussing in the talk page, which I identified as vandalism and gave a warning. Now the differences in opinions between the editors has resulted in an edit war, knowingly or unknowingly, because of these reversions, 1 and 2. I believe the matter will be resolved with proper coordination between the editors, hopefully without any blocks. Thank you. Shriram (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks Shriram. I would appreciate your (and other's) opinions on the matter. If the Politics in the British Isles article is up for AfD, and one of the main proposed results of the AfD is to merge the whole article into Ireland-United Kingdom relations, is it reasonable to pre-empt consensus at the AfD by unilaterally copy/pasting the entire content into this article before the AfD closes? I don't want to edit war any more than anyone else, I just want to make sure we have a good, reasoned discussion, and I don't think this particular move is helpful; in fact I find it rather disruptive. The main reason being, as a result of the AfD, many people will be editing Politics in the British Isles - improving, adding, removing, etc; if there is a complete copy on *this* page, then we will have diverging content streams. You can already see this - additional edits/improvements are being made here which are not being copied back to Politics in the British Isles. If the decision is made to *not* merge, then all of the work here will have been in vain; if the decision is made to merge, then all work in the other page will be in vain; either way, innocent editors will be wasting time making edits that will then have to be tediously merged later. The editor in question (RA) has called this a content fork, but it is RA who created the content fork by copy/pasting the full contents here in the first place before the AfD was closed. I am happy to abide by community consensus once the AfD is complete, but until then, there is zero reason to maintain two copies of this text, and in fact it is a detriment to the encyclopedia. I look forward to hearing what others think. --KarlB (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think "there is zero reason" does mean that there is a consensus to remove the text from this page. Please seek consensus for the removal rather than WP:EDITWARing when your actions are contested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Contested changes

In these two edits, KarlB removed a large chunk of text, and changed some wording. I reverted those changes, and per WP:BRD that was the point at which KarlB should have started discussing them. However, instead of discussion he simply reverted my reversion.

I have now restored the text again, and asked Karl to discuss these changes on the article's talk page rather than simply restoring the text.

The reason I reverted Karl's edit was that:

• the first of his two edits introduced several subtle but unhelpful changes:
  1. it changed the specific phrase "the two states" to the vaguer "countries in the region". This is less clear, and less accurate: the British–Irish Council comprises two sovereign governments, three devolved administrations, and three crown dependencies. In this context, "country" is a vague term which could refer to a historic country (e.g. a united Ireland or Scotland), a current nation-state (the UK or the Republic of Ireland), or to one of the constituent countries of the UK.
     Terminology which would work in a less complex context does address the complexities of this situation.
  2. Karl'd edit replaced the phrase "dependencies of the UK" with "crown dependencies". The phrase Crown dependencies is introduced and linked in the lead of the article, so does not need to be repeated. In this case, the fact that three islands are constitutionally dependencies of the crown is less significant than the fact that for practical purposes they are dependencies of the United Kingdom, which is responsible for their international relations: as the Crown's own website explains it, The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands"
• Karl's second edit simply removed the whole two whole paragraphs relating to joint projects involving Ireland, the UK and the crown dependencies. This is a damaging removal, because those joint projects illustrate how the process of co-operation is broadening from political measures through to include infrastucture.

I hope that per WP:BRD, Karl will now discuss his contested changes rather than simply reverting. I note that he has already been warned above about WP:EDITWARring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Recent edits by RA and BHG are pushing a POV that the crown dependencies are somehow part of the UK. When I attempted to undo these changes, my edits were reverted. A search of the UK legislature suggests that the term "United Kingdom dependencies" [1] does not include the Crown dependencies. Before 2002, the British Overseas territories were called 'British dependent territories'. Thus, the use of the phrasing 'dependencies of the UK' instead of the standard 'Crown dependencies' risks confusion. BHGs assertion that "the fact that three islands are constitutionally dependencies of the crown is less significant than the fact that for practical purposes they are dependencies of the United Kingdom" is not backed up by any sources, analysis, articles, or law" is pure fiction. For practical purposes, UK parliament has sovereign control over them; yes. But that does *not* make them dependencies of the United Kingdom. I suggest BHG leave law to the lawyers, and just accept the terminology used by the UK government.--KarlB (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The handiest source is one which you yourself posted at AFD: the Crown's own website, which says "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands". It is interesting that you regard this as "pure fiction".

It is also a pity that you snipped off the start of my comment before quoting it. Yoy snipped off the crucial first 3 words, which i have italicised here: "In this case, the fact that three islands are constitutionally dependencies of the crown is less significant than the fact that for practical purposes they are dependencies of the United Kingdom, which is responsible for their international relations". I was making a specific observation wrt international relations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving the legal analysis to the those who can demonstrate competence in this field; it seems you're not cut out for it. In any case, the UK government most commonly refers to them as the Crown dependencies, and that is where the article is at. Dependencies of the United Kingdom redirects to a very different place. to avoid confusion, this should be changed back to crown dependencies.--KarlB (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see that you regard the Crown as lacking competence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the crown is quite competent in these matters. You will note on their website, they always refer to them as crown dependencies, and never as dependencies of the United Kingdom. There is a reason for this. The reason I'm suggesting you don't engage in legal analysis is that you are making a legal inference. Your suggestion is that this phrase: "The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands" can be used to draw this conclusion:"In this case, the fact that three islands are constitutionally dependencies of the crown is less significant than the fact that for practical purposes they are dependencies of the United Kingdom, which is responsible for their international relations"" You are making a statement as to what is significant, in a matter of international law and relationship of the crown, the UK, the crown dependencies, and the legal arrangements between them, all based on a snippet from a website. As I said, it's poor analysis, at best. In any case, the point I'm trying to make is not a legal one, it's a terminology one. All instances should be changed to crown dependency to make it clear these are dependencies of the crown, not of the UK; that is the term officially used by the crown. The change made to suggest they are somehow part of the UK was made in order to win an argument at AfD, not based on any sources.--KarlB (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Academic perspectives

I have tagged the section headed "Academic perspectives" as a {{POV-section}}, because far from offering perspectives (plural), it offers only one perspective, "postnationalist" approach advocated by the philosopher Richard Kearney.

The sole focus on "postnationalism" not only ignores the significance of the nationalist perspective on Irish history, but it also ignores the huge significance of Ulster Unionism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the section isn't really relevant to an article about bilateral relations; it is much more relevant in an article about multilateral relations in the archipelago. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of which article it is placed in, it purports to offer a summary of academic perspectives but actually offers only one perspective. It fails WP:NPOV in either context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a content fork in any case, so let's discuss in the other article. I've deleted, we can continue the discussion at Politics in the British Isles (where this content was first created...) --KarlB (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl, just stop removing it. There is a discussion underway about it here; please discuss it rather than simply removing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's silly to make edits to the same section in two places. I already placed a redirect, so we can have the discussion *there*. Please stop edit warring to maintain duplicate content - there's no point.--KarlB (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

---> Moved this discussion to Talk:Politics in the British Isles. Please continue the discussion there, as that is the original place where the content was created, and that is where edits are occurring (for example, additional references have already been added since your request for more refs) - but I'm not going to do this in two places. Thanks for understanding! --KarlB (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl, please stop edit-warring and revert your latest removal. Please discuss the inclusion of an academic perspectives section in this article, rather than repeatedly removing it. There may be a separate discussion about academic approaches in the other article, but please do not unilaterally move a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's the same *exact* content BHG. If you want to discuss it, the content at the original article awaits your input. Thanks! And let's not talk about unilateral - copying over the whole Politics in the British Isles here was the very definition of unilateral, and that move has caused a lot of wasted time since.--KarlB (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Politics in the British Isles § Academic perspectives

[Edited: Struck out because we are discussing this article, here. --RA (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Karl, the discussion was happening here. You unilaterally moved the discussion, but then went ahead and unilaterally edited the text on the other page anyway. So I can only conclude that attempts to discuss this with you are pointless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the section. The content was released under a compatible license and is directly relevant to the content of this article. A substantial cause of concern is the existence of two articles on the same topic but written by authors with alternative POVs on the subject. The two need to be integrated. — Rannpháirtí anaithnid 08:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

That is a misleading message. Wow. There is an AfD currently happening for Politics in the British Isles, and in a few days time, either they will or won't be integrated based on consensus. In the mean time, you have forked the content here, pre-empting consensus, and then you have the temerity to state that they need to be integrated. Total and utter nonsense. --KarlB (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is on British-Irish relations. The Academic perspectives (whether it contains POV issues or not) is on academic perspectives on British-Irish relations. --RA (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the perspectives, and the elements within, you will notice that bulk of this section is *not* about the academics of British-Irish relations. for some odd reason, you seem to believe that historians and those who study culture and politics care only about sovereign states. I have news for you - they don't. --KarlB (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Karl, an aspect of the perspectives pointed to in that paragraph is that British-Irish relations is not merely about the interaction of sovereign states. That's a perspective that needs to be present in this article in order to address the topic of British-Irish relations from a neutral point of view. It is no reason to create new article that addresses the same subject from a different perspective. --RA (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

neutrality of history section

The history section is rather one sided, and seems to tell the story from a nationalist irish perspective. --KarlB (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no section of the article labelled "history". Please can you be more specific about which sections of the article you are referring to, and what exactly are the aspects of it which appear "one-sided". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The tag for neutrality does not seem to have any meaning at the moment. --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm withdrawing this because it is just turning into a repeat of the AfD. Rather than discussing whether Politics in the British Isles should exist, I had hoped to discuss how it's subject material was different to the topic of this article. That doesn't appear possible at this time. It is too soon after the AfD and trenches are still occupied on both sides. --RA (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that "Politics in the British Isles" be merged into the already-existing "Ireland-United Kingdom relations". Per Wikipedia:Merging reasons for a merger include:

1. Duplicate: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
2. Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.

There is an obvious and clear overlap in the content of the two articles in almost all of the sections of the "Politics in the British Isles" article. Effectively all of the content of that article has already been incorporated here and expanded upon and further developed. Thus, as it stands, the "Politics in the British Isles" article is essentially a duplicate.

"Ireland-United Kingdom relations" is the earlier-existing article, whereas "Politics in the British Isles" is newly-created, so a merger in this direction makes greater sense. Additionally, in the recent AfD, concerns were raised about the suitability of "Politics in the British Isles" as a means to frame the subject. These concerns are borne out, for example, in the heading on "Government structure" (for a geographic entity without a government) and, for example, in the heading "International relations" (for a geographic entity with only two states that have competency for international relations). --RA (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Merge It's been discussed and mostly accepted here that "British Isles" is a geographic term, and should not be used when discussing politics. As borne out by the point above "Government structure", the most appropriate article is the one that already existed. --HighKing (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• oppose merge This is the discussion that never ends! After an AfD, a deletion review, and finally a fully closed AfD that didn't go his way, at which this exact same argument was made by RA (i.e. that Politics in the British Isles is a fork), RA persists in trying to get rid of this article!

  The only reason the content seems to be duplicated is that RA copied over all of the content from Politics in the British Isles to Ireland-United Kingdom relations during the AfD discussion, before consensus for delete or merge or keep had been reached, and anyone who cares to look in the history will see exactly how this happened. The scope of Ireland-United Kingdom relations for 6 years has been on the bilateral relations between the two governments, with zero mention of the Crown dependencies. Here is the lead sentence from just before this mess started:

  "British–Irish relations, or Anglo-Irish relations, refers to the relationship between the Government of Ireland (including the Government of the Irish Free State) and the Government of the United Kingdom since most of Ireland gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1922 as the Irish Free State."

  Now the lead reads as follows:

  "British–Irish relations (or Anglo-Irish relations) refers to the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom. The three devolved administrations of the United Kingdom, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the three Crown dependencies of the United Kingdom,[1] the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, also participate in multilateral bodies created between the two states.[2] The Crown Dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, however, for the purposes of international relations, they are represented by the UK government.[3]"

  Notice the change?

  In this case, the decision on the AfD was keep, not merge, so there isn't any need to rehash the same discussion over again. Better to focus on the proper scope for these two articles, which I propose as follows:

  • Politics in the British Isles: Focused on multilateral relationships in the isles and summary of any bilateral relations (e.g. Ireland-Scotland, Ireland-Wales) that don't yet have their own article, as well as comparative politics (ex: looking at research on how political movements in one part of the isles impacts political movements in other parts - regionalism, nationalism, unionism, etc.)
  • Ireland-United Kingdom relations: Keep this article focused on bilateral relations between the two sovereign states, and so-called London-Dublin axis; and entities such as the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference

  Together these two articles will give full coverage, with little overlap. We should also consider a rename of Politics in the British Isles to Politics in the Atlantic archipelago because the drama around this name is not worth the trouble.--KarlB (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  The reason the articles appear the same is because the treat the same thing. The argument that this article should be about relations between Ireland and the UK central government and the other article should be about relations between Ireland and the UK devolved government is nonsensical. --RA (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The articles cover two separate topics. It may be possible to merge UK-I relations into Politics of the British Isles but it makes for better organisation of content to have them separate. Northern Arrow (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Somehow I knew this would happen immediately. I've already sufficiently detailed my reasoning in the AfD on why I consider them to be separate and it seems to be a difference of opinion that is more or less intractable. This happens from time to time and, really, both sides are both correct and incorrect. But I think the AfD shows, along with the voters, that a merge is inappropriate. Otherwise, the discussion would have gone to a merge/redirect result. Silverseren^C 21:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What a dreary read...

Pity it couldn't be more focused instead of being a potted history and description of just about everything and anything. Cut it down to a third in length would be the best start. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it really about IRL-GBR relations...

Another point...it goes on so much about Channel Islands (not even in UK) and EU citizenship etc., etc. ad nauseum...Is it really about Ireland-UK relations? I think it should be more Governmental focussed....as otherwise it goes on and on and on .....Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

King's Title in independent Ireland

An editor insists that the following is correct: "During the period from December 1936 to April 1949, it was unclear whether or not the Irish state was a republic or a form of constitutional monarchy and (from 1937) whether its head of state was the President of Ireland (Douglas Hyde until 1945, and Seán T. O'Kelly afterwards) or the King of Ireland (George VI) and so be in personal union with the United Kingdom.

I disagree....Read the following:

..."The King's title in the Irish Free State was exactly the same as it was elsewhere in the British Empire, being from 1922 to 1927: "By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" and, from 1927 to 1937: "By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India".

The position (as outlined above) continued until the ROI Act....That is to say, the King had no separate Irish title...There was no "King of Ireland" (the title did not exist) in personal union....There was a King whose title was universal...It was only in 1953 (after IRL left Empire) that Royal titles got split out and there were separate "realms". Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal Diplomatic Relations

On the page Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, for each country added to a list of countries Ireland has ties with, it asks for a year in which formal diplomatic relations began. As of now I have placed 1801 in the box to represent the Act of Union but this does not seem right to me. Does anyone know when official diplomatic relations were started between the two countries? Im guessing around the 1920's? ShaneMc2010 00:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Colours

UK orange. Eire green. I don't know why it was changed from how it was originally, but this is a little silly. Rob (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Brexit

I am completely amazed that there is absolutely no reference to Brexit within this article as it will have a profound affect on relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland and should be mentioned on this article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A4B2:484:4A54:9BF3 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC))

Country comparison

The Irish GDP PPP figure is totally off. See economy of Ireland Wikipedia page. 109.79.86.180 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)