No. 48 NAI DFA London Embassy F/132/1/2
Memorandum by Frederick H. Boland to Tim O'Driscoll (Dublin)1
London, 26 September 1951
- The policy of both the main political parties in Britain is that, whatever solution of Partition is found, there must be no coercion of the majority in the Six County area. In the case of the Labour Party however, the manner of stating this policy has been changed slightly within recent years.
- Up to about the time of the enactment of the Ireland Act, the Labour policy had been generally expressed in the terms that ‘no change should be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without Northern Ireland’s free agreement’. These were the terms used by Mr. Attlee2 in his statement of 28th October, 1948 and in a later statement of the 25th November, 1948. These statements were quoted in the Note of 10th May, 1949 which the British Government sent us in reply to our Aide-Mémoire of 7th May, 19493 about the Ireland Bill.
- About May 1949, however, a new formula for expressing the Labour Party’s policy was adopted. The precise terms of this new formula vary with individual speakers but, generally speaking, it is to the effect that Partition is a matter for the North and South of Ireland to settle between themselves. This new manner of stating the problem seems to have been first used by Mr. Herbert Morrison4 in concluding his Second Reading speech on the Ireland Bill. He said on that occasion: ‘This matter has in the long run to be settled in Ireland by Irishmen and none of us, to whatever party we belong, ought to be parties to permitting ourselves to be squeezed and coerced on a matter which ought not to be a deciding factor in British politics’. This was the formula adopted universally by Labour speakers during the General Election in 1950 and, as will be seen from the report I made at the time, Mr. Gordon Walker boasted in my first interview with him, that it had proved extremely effective in silencing interruptions about Partition. Mr. Morrison used the formula himself on several occasions during the 1950 election, usually in the terms: ‘My belief has always been that Irishmen in Ireland should settle all this between them and when they have done so, they could let us know what they recommend.’ Judging from Mr. Morgan Phillips’5 recent press statement which is dealt with in the Department’s Anti-Partition News Sheet of 10th September, the same general formula will be used by Labour Party supporters during the forthcoming election.
- It is an interesting speculation why the Labour Party shifted its statement of policy from the terms used by Mr. Attlee in October and November 1948 to the formula referred to in the preceding paragraph. There is no means of ascertaining definitely why the change was made. My own belief is that Mr. Attlee’s formula was found to be tactically bad, because it put the Labour Party too much in the position of ‘standing over’ the Tory clique in Stormont, so the back room boys at Transport House6 cast around for a formula which, while amounting to the same thing from the practical point of view, would enable the Labour Party to say to its own supporters and critics abroad that, far from intervening in Ireland, its whole policy was to leave the Irish free to decide their future for themselves.
- There appears to be some uncertainty and conflict of view within the Labour Party as to what Britain’s attitude should be if the North and South agreed to come together. Several Government spokesmen are in the habit of implying in their public and private statements that, in that event, Britain would accept the situation. Mr. Morrison, however, has on several occasions made it clear that even if the North and South came together, Britain would still regard herself as having something to say to the matter.
- Of course, from our point of view the new formula can be assailed from all sorts of angles. Britain’s position is that of the man who, having made an omelette out of his neighbour’s egg, says that it is really for the neighbour to decide what to do with the omelette and if he wants to make an egg of it again, it’s O.K. with him. The disingenuousness of the policy can easily be exposed in detailed argument. When it comes to framing counter attacks for the forthcoming election campaign, however, what is needed is firstly points that can be made rapidly in casual interruptions and secondly points which will carry conviction with the fair-minded British elector. From this point of view, the best lines of counter attack which occur to me at the moment are:-
- ‘Doesn’t this mean that the Labour Party, which always was opposed to the partition of Ireland in the past, is now making the ending of Partition subject to the veto of the Tory group in Belfast?’ (This is obviously a point for predominantly Labour audiences).
- ‘How is it democratic to make the realisation of something, which the vast majority of the Irish people want, subject to the veto of a local minority of the population?’
- ‘Does the Labour Party agree that it is desirable that the partition of Ireland should be brought to an end in the way indicated and if so, why doesn’t it say so bluntly?’
Purchase Volumes Online
ebooks
The Royal Irish Academy's Documents on Irish Foreign Policy series has published an eBook of confidential correspondence on the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations.
International Counterparts
The international network of Editors of Diplomatic Documents was founded in 1988. Delegations from different parts of the world met for the first time in London in 1989.
Read more ....