What if the 1916 Rising had not happened?

josephryan1989

On Holy Saturday, 22 April 1916, Sir Matthew Nathan met with Lord Wimborne in the Vice-Regal Lodge drawing room at the Phoenix Parkand discussed the news that the Aud loaded with German arms had been intercepted by the Royal Navy and had been scuttled by her crew, that a certain "Richard Morten" arrested in Kerry was none other than the dissident Sir Roger Casement and that Austin Stack had been arrested trying to secure his release.

Wimborne and Nathan would meet again several times and argue all weekend. Nathan was optimistic and believed that no insurrection would go ahead now that the arms had been intercepted. Wimborne favoring a swoop on Liberty Hall before he was dissuaded by Colonel H. V. Cowan, acting commander in Dublin during the absence of the Commander-in-Chief's absence in London who warned it would require large number of troops and artillery to take the building. Instead it was proposed by the Commissioner of Police that early morning raids would surprise the ringleaders and it would take a number of days for the arrangements.

Meanwhile Eoin MacNeill and The O'Rahilly, who had waved a revolver in Pearse's face, responded to the news of the arrest of Casement and the interception of the Aud by issuing countermanding orders while an announcement was published in a Sunday Dublin newspaper calling off military maneuvers. The O'Rahilly and others traveled the country frantically trying to call off the Rising and largely succeeded except for the key battalions in Dublin and in a few other towns around the country.

The actions of MacNeill prompted Thomas Clarke, James Connolly, Patrick Pearse and Sean McDermott to meet in the Council Room of Liberty Hall where they decided the rebellion would go ahead on Easter Monday April 24th regardless. The British authorities meanwhile believed the countermanding order meant that the rebellion was off and the leaders would be picked up in due course. When news reached the O'Rahilly that hundreds of rebels were going ahead with Pearse and Connolly he drove to Dublin and joined them and died in the fighting. Wrong footed and confused the British authorities quickly got back in their stride and thousands of troops were brought into Dublin to crush the Rising and Pearse and Connolly et all were executed.

The rest is history. The executions won the sympathy of the political mainstream and Sinn Féin won the majority of Irish seats in the 1918 elections before declaring an Irish Republic in 1919 at the first meeting of Dáil Éireann kick starting the War of Independence which was followed by the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the subsequent Irish Civil War and the creation of the Free State.

What would have happened if the British authorities had acted in time and rounded up Pearse and Connolly and other leaders? What if the rebels had given up and called off the Rising?

It is likely that police and military raids would have been met with armed resistance and a number of rebels would have chosen to go down fighting rather than capture. Richard Kent was killed and his brothers David, William, Thomas arrested during a shootout following the 1916 Rising and Thomas Kent was executed in Cork. It is also likely they would have become martyrs overnight and would have been eulogized in poems and ballads. Thousands of others would have been rounded up much like the thousands who were arrested after the defunct Fenian rebellion in the 1860s. However without the psychological power of having fought in an armed rebellion it is unlikely that the majority of people would have rowed in behind the rebels.

Pearse and Connolly and indeed then less well known figures such as De Valera and Collins would have remained marginal figures. Instead mainstream Ireland might well have doubled down in their support for Redmond and the IPP and the "blood sacrifice" of the National Volunteers who had answered his call to fight in World War 1. A few republicans in prisons in England might well have been elected to the Commons on a Sinn Féin ticket but without the mobilizing effect of the 1916 Rising and the executions that followed it is likely that the IPP would have been returned with a majority of Irish seats in 1918.

Redmond might still have died in March 1918 and perhaps would have been succeeded by his brother Willie if he had not chosen to go over the top with his men and De Valera had not unseated him in East Clare. De Valera probably would not have risen to prominence if the 1916 leaders had not been executed. Similarly Collins would not have had the opportunity to network in Frognach internment camp if the original Irish Volunteer leaders were still around to challenge him. If not one or other of the Redmond brothers, the Irish Parliamentary Party would have been led by one or other of its leaders who were not discredited by the success of Sinn Féin following the Rising.

Popular disillusionment with World War I led to the conscription crisis in 1918 when the British government were opposed by the Irish Catholic Church, the farming and business community and all classes of Irish society. In our timeline Sinn Féin capitalized on this disillusionment to sweep the board in the subsequent elections in December 1918. Without Sinn Féin in the picture the IPP might have jumped on the anti-conscription bandwagon themselves and won a majority of seats instead.

The IPP would have demanded the implementation of Home Rule which was on ice for the duration of World War I. This would have been opposed by the Unionists, Conservatives, the British Army and the UVF. With violent republicanism in disarray it is likely that the IPP faced with overwhelming military opposition would have accepted the partition of Ireland and a Home Rule regime limited to something approximating the 26 counties. There probably would have been a bitter political split in the IPP similar to the division in the wake of Parnell but no civil war.

There might have been some violent opposition by republicans but if they attacked Irish police and Irish troops serving the Home Rule government they would not have enjoyed broad popular support. Pearse and his supporters might have formed a republican party to challenge the state while Connolly and his supporters might have formed a radical socialist party allied with Lenin but would have struggled to gain more than marginal support.
The Catholic Church would have remained the dominant institution in southern Ireland and would have imprinted their conservatism on the new state and reactionary governments would have cracked down on republicans and socialists and other dissidents.

In Northern Ireland Unionists would have created a sectarian state much like the Stormont state created in 1920. In the 1930s Ireland would have remained part of the British Commonwealth with the Royal Navy retaining our ports and conservative Irish farmers supplying the British market with their produce without an economic war. There would have been modest industrialization but nothing more. British economic interests in Ireland have remained relatively unchallenged but for the rural and urban poor mass emigration would have continued as before. Irish tastes in sport, music and culture would have followed British trends. Hurling and Gaelic football would have remained fringe sports, figures like Yeats and O'Casey and Joyce would have been obscure and the Gaelic language would have continued to disappear.

During World War 2, both British and American troops would have used Ireland as a base, Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and Cork would probably have been bombed by the German Luftwaffe with much loss of life and Ireland armed and supplied by the British and Americans would have sent divisions of Irish troops to fight in Europe. Perhaps an Irish brigade would have gone ashore on the D-Day beaches or an Irish parachute regiment would taken part in Market Garden. Post war Ireland would have benefited from the Marshall Plan, joined the UN and NATO and probably moved into the American sphere of influence. Post war there would have been demands for Irish independence as the British Empire went into decline and sympathetic American governments backed us as a key Western Atlantic ally. As an open society we would have probably embraced modernity and industrialization balanced with our traditional Catholic conservative values.
Relations between Ireland and Britain would have been cordial.

However in the 1960s Catholic demands for human rights would have been met with intransigence and violence from the Protestant dominated government in Ulster leading to civil disorder and acts of terrorism on both sides....

Peregrine

Moved from AH to History & Heritage. Please read the local charter before posting.

Jesus.

Far too long of an OP

KingBrian2

I'll just say we would be ****ed right now.

recedite

josephryan1989 wrote: »

...Pearse and Connolly and indeed then less well known figures such as De Valera and Collins would have remained marginal figures. Instead mainstream Ireland might well have doubled down in their support for Redmond and the IPP and the "blood sacrifice" of the National Volunteers who had answered his call to fight in World War 1.

Anyone in charge of a standing army does not remain a marginal figure, so Connolly would have been very influential.
But control of the Irish Volunteers after 1918 in that scenario is hard to predict. Lets suppose, as you do, that the IPP regained the majority control that they had in 1914. In that situation Pearse would have been marginalised alright, and the Irish volunteers controlled by the IPP, not the IRB.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

A few republicans in prisons in England might well have been elected to the Commons on a Sinn Féin ticket but without the mobilizing effect of the 1916 Rising and the executions that followed it is likely that the IPP would have been returned with a majority of Irish seats in 1918...
Without Sinn Féin in the picture the IPP might have jumped on the anti-conscription bandwagon themselves and won a majority of seats instead.

I agree, all very plausible.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The IPP would have demanded the implementation of Home Rule which was on ice for the duration of World War I. This would have been opposed by the Unionists, Conservatives, the British Army and the UVF. With violent republicanism in disarray it is likely that the IPP faced with overwhelming military opposition would have accepted the partition of Ireland..

Lets look a bit closer at this. The UVF and Carson bitterly opposed John Redmond, his Irish Volunteers and Home Rule in 1913. But by 1916 the larger part of the Irish Volunteers membership was actually fighting side by side in the trenches alongside the UVF membership, against a common enemy. That kind of shared experience changes things completely.

Was Carson implacably opposed to a 32 county united Ireland? No, he was from Dublin, and had lived all his life in a 32 county Ireland. What he was opposed to was "Rome Rule". Take religion out of the equation and there is no problem. On this point, James Connolly would have backed him up completely. So here we have the three major power brokers very likely in agreement.

And its not that far fetched an idea. Comparing to Irish rugby, there has always been one united 32 county team because religion and sport are kept separate.

Therefore if some separation of church and state had been built into the Home Rule arrangement, the moderate majority both north and south could probably have been persuaded to back it.

From wiki;

After the partition of Ireland, Carson repeatedly warned Ulster Unionist leaders not to alienate northern Catholics, as he foresaw this would make Northern Ireland unstable. In 1921 he stated: "We used to say that we could not trust an Irish parliament in Dublin to do justice to the Protestant minority. Let us take care that that reproach can no longer be made against your parliament, and from the outset let them see that the Catholic minority have nothing to fear from a Protestant majority.

On the subject of the British Army, it does what the British govt. tells it to do, it does not have a policy of its own.

So allowing for this one modification, everything else in your scenario changes...

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The Catholic Church would have remained the dominant institution in southern Ireland and would have imprinted their conservatism on the new state and reactionary governments would have cracked down on republicans and socialists and other dissidents....

In Northern Ireland Unionists would have created a sectarian state much like the Stormont state created in 1920....

Irish tastes in sport, music and culture would have followed British trends. Hurling and Gaelic football would have remained fringe sports, figures like Yeats and O'Casey and Joyce would have been obscure and the Gaelic language would have continued to disappear.

There's no reason to think anything "Irish" would have been suppressed.
The Welsh language actually did better than the Irish language over the same period of time, and that was without Welsh Home Rule.

josephryan1989 wrote: »

However in the 1960s Catholic demands for human rights would have been met with intransigence and violence from the Protestant dominated government in Ulster leading to civil disorder and acts of terrorism on both sides....

The Troubles never would have happened.

Manach

My 2c, given the nature of counter-factual history: anything and nothing. For one instance, the rising could have been the effect of historical forces with slightly different characters enacting the same events, albeit a few weeks later. In another, if the rising was nipped in the bud then the events could have enfolded to bring about a situation (assuming the horrors of the Great War stilled sectarian passions) a situation very like current day Scotland, with a limited devolved legislative assemble.
Or it could be a future that is completely unexpected, for instance if instead of Wilson dissidents assassinated Churchill who spoke out against most forms of Irish concessions then World history would have been significantly altered.

Victor

Whatever reassurances Irish participation in WWI had given the Unionists and the British was destroyed by the rising.

I think that given the government lived up to its promise of giving women the vote, that they would have also lived up to the promise of granting home rule. If the 1916 Rising didn't happen, I think Unionists and the British would have been less cynical about Nationalist intentions.

Having a strong Unionist minority, a moderator majority would have kept DeVelera (in this reality a nobody) and the church side-lined and things would have been quite different.

DarkyHughes

I doubt we'd have the tricolor as our national flag. We'd still probably be apart of the UK but with the same types of devolved powers as Wales & Scotland but even stronger powers the country would still be divided tho because the Loyalists hate Catholics & would never obey an administration that's mostly Catholic members because the British government has never had the balls to make democratic laws apply to the Loyalists.

The British government & the gomben men in the Dail said they never gave into terror during the Northern war but they gave into plent of Loyalists terror.

We probably also would have lost 10's of 1000's of civilians from Nazi air raids in WW2.

DarkyHughes

Victor wrote: »

Whatever reassurances Irish participation in WWI had given the Unionists and the British was destroyed by the rising.

I think that given the government lived up to its promise of giving women the vote, that they would have also lived up to the promise of granting home rule. If the 1916 Rising didn't happen, I think Unionists and the British would have been less cynical about Nationalist intentions.

Having a strong Unionist minority, a moderator majority would have kept DeVelera (in this reality a nobody) and the church side-lined and things would have been quite different.

They did with the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which split Ireland into two autonomous regions - Northern Ireland & Southern Ireland.

DarkyHughes

recedite wrote: »

Anyone in charge of a standing army does not remain a marginal figure, so Connolly would have been very influential.
But control of the Irish Volunteers after 1918 in that scenario is hard to predict. Lets suppose, as you do, that the IPP regained the majority control that they had in 1914. In that situation Pearse would have been marginalised alright, and the Irish volunteers controlled by the IPP, not the IRB.


I agree, all very plausible.
Lets look a bit closer at this. The UVF and Carson bitterly opposed John Redmond, his Irish Volunteers and Home Rule in 1913. But by 1916 the larger part of the Irish Volunteers membership was actually fighting side by side in the trenches alongside the UVF membership, against a common enemy. That kind of shared experience changes things completely.

Was Carson implacably opposed to a 32 county united Ireland? No, he was from Dublin, and had lived all his life in a 32 county Ireland. What he was opposed to was "Rome Rule". Take religion out of the equation and there is no problem. On this point, James Connolly would have backed him up completely. So here we have the three major power brokers very likely in agreement.

And its not that far fetched an idea. Comparing to Irish rugby, there has always been one united 32 county team because religion and sport are kept separate.

Therefore if some separation of church and state had been built into the Home Rule arrangement, the moderate majority both north and south could probably have been persuaded to back it.

From wiki; On the subject of the British Army, it does what the British govt. tells it to do, it does not have a policy of its own.

So allowing for this one modification, everything else in your scenario changes...


There's no reason to think anything "Irish" would have been suppressed.
The Welsh language actually did better than the Irish language over the same period of time, and that was without Welsh Home Rule.

The Troubles never would have happened.

If Catholics were treated the same way they were by the pre 1972 Stormont regime there would have some sort of rebellion against the tyranny that was the the Loyalists sectarian, fascist regime of the Northern statelet

Eugene Norman

Some of the comments here - that we would end up with devolved Scottish type parliaments in 2015 are clearly ahistorical. We would have ended up with that in 1921. And within the Irish Parliament and Irish members in westminister there would be some demanding more independence. As with the SNP now.

WWII would have brought the two islands together, although the IRA or IRB would still exist. And maybe help the Germans. After that it's speculation.

Jesus.

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They did with the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which split Ireland into two autonomous regions - Northern Ireland & Southern Ireland.

Largely as a result of the ongoing Anglo-Irish war

Victor

How about some critical analysis of that?

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I doubt we'd have the tricolor as our national flag.

On what grounds?

We'd still probably be apart of the UK but with the same types of devolved powers as Wales & Scotland but even stronger powers

If Ireland was still part of the UK, and some British parties were favourably disposed to home rule at some level, and Ireland had 100 seats in parliament, wouldn't home rule have been achieved? And home rule being substantially more than devolution? At times, even the Conservatives might have supported home rule, as it would have been the difference between them having a majority or not.

the country would still be divided tho

But you just said we would still be part of the UK?

because the Loyalists hate Catholics & would never obey an administration that's mostly Catholic members because the British government has never had the balls to make democratic laws apply to the Loyalists.

But aren't you proven wrong by the Britsh government dissolving Stormont in the 1970s?

Aren't you just engaging in your own sectarianism?

We probably also would have lost 10's of 1000's of civilians from Nazi air raids in WW2.

Again, how about some critical analysis? In the entire UK, 40,000–43,000 civilians (I imagine military casualties would have been relatively minor in this part of the war) died in the Blitz. Are you suggesting that, at longer distance (the extra fuel needed means much less payload), in a country with one-fifteenth of the population and few meaningful targets, that as many casualties would have been inflicted?

Jesus.

Victor wrote: »

in a county with one-fifteenth of the population and few meaningful targets, that as many casualties would have been inflicted?

Which county? Dublin?

Victor

Jesus. wrote: »

Which county? Dublin?

Typo fixed.

josephryan1989

It is also possible that Belfast, the industrial heart of Ireland and a stronghold of Unionist rule might have become the capital of an all Ireland government led by a Protestant controlled military dictatorship. The UVF had drawn up serious plans for a Rising of their own in Belfast if Home Rule had been implemented. Despite the brutality of the Tan War, the British did fight the Irish War of Independence with one hand tied behind their back. If there had been Conservative led British government during the years 1905-1922 and if there had been no WW1 to knock the bottom out of British imperialism it is likely that the same tactics used against the Boers - concentration camps - could have been used against the Irish if an IPP led Irish Volunteer movement rose against British rule. David Lloyd George negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty threatening all out war if Collins, Griffith et al refused to sign but if the hard-line pro-Unionist Bonar Law had been PM there would have been no such restraint.

In this hellish alternate history by the 1960s the whole of Ireland and not just the six counties would have been ruled by a Stormont government. The Troubles would have been island wide and much more nasty.

Alternatively if somehow if there were an all Irish Republic dominated by an ultra-Catholic theocracy (perhaps if Germany had won WW1?) the Unionists would have become the oppressed minority and decades later would have probably launched a Civil Rights Movement of their own. The government in Dublin might have been as despised as Franco's Spain. The UVF instead might have been getting arms from Gaddaffi and become ideological bed fellows with the ANC and the PLO.

KingBrian2

josephryan1989 wrote: »

It is also possible that Belfast, the industrial heart of Ireland and a stronghold of Unionist rule might have become the capital of an all Ireland government led by a Protestant controlled military dictatorship. The UVF had drawn up serious plans for a Rising of their own in Belfast if Home Rule had been implemented. Despite the brutality of the Tan War, the British did fight the Irish War of Independence with one hand tied behind their back. If there had been Conservative led British government during the years 1905-1922 and if there had been no WW1 to knock the bottom out of British imperialism it is likely that the same tactics used against the Boers - concentration camps - could have been used against the Irish if an IPP led Irish Volunteer movement rose against British rule. David Lloyd George negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty threatening all out war if Collins, Griffith et al refused to sign but if the hard-line pro-Unionist Bonar Law had been PM there would have been no such restraint.

In this hellish alternate history by the 1960s the whole of Ireland and not just the six counties would have been ruled by a Stormont government. The Troubles would have been island wide and much more nasty.

Alternatively if somehow if there were an all Irish Republic dominated by an ultra-Catholic theocracy (perhaps if Germany had won WW1?) the Unionists would have become the oppressed minority and decades later would have probably launched a Civil Rights Movement of their own. The government in Dublin might have been as despised as Franco's Spain. The UVF instead might have been getting arms from Gaddaffi and become ideological bed fellows with the ANC and the PLO.

Yeah we did get to fight the lesser of two evils. The British gvt was manipulative and cruel but the British public objected to the brutality. If we had to fight a two front war against Britain and the Northern Unionists we would have been fighting for a lot more than Republican ideals.

One aspect of the rivalry we had with Britain which we shared was constitutional democracy. Had the Northerners been in charge we would not even have had that. Yet when the time came for the Brits to take sides they chose to cooperate with the vicious thugs up the north than with the Republicans.

recedite

josephryan1989 wrote: »

It is also possible that Belfast, the industrial heart of Ireland and a stronghold of Unionist rule might have become the capital of an all Ireland government led by a Protestant controlled military dictatorship...

KingBrian2 wrote: »

...the Brits to take sides they chose to cooperate with the vicious thugs up the north than with the Republicans.

These kinds of posts are just a reflection of their author's bigotry. There is no real thought put into them unfortunately.

KingBrian2

recedite wrote: »

These kinds of posts are just a reflection of their author's bigotry. There is no real thought put into them unfortunately.

Well actually no the North has a powerful far right movement.

DarkyHughes

Jesus. wrote: »

Largely as a result of the ongoing Anglo-Irish war

Yes, but the Irish electorate wanted more than Home Rule by that stage. They were sick of waiting 30+ years for Home Rule.

KingBrian2

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Yes, but the Irish electorate wanted more than Home Rule by that stage. They were sick of waiting 30+ years for Home Rule.

Yeah mind you the Israeli gvt will have to be careful the Palestinians have been looking for nationhood for a long time now I don't see it going exactly the same way. It is true to say deny people rights and expect violence.

Jesus.

recedite wrote: »

These kinds of posts are just a reflection of their author's bigotry. There is no real thought put into them unfortunately.

Hmm. I asked you on another thread about your knowledge of northern Protestants and how naive you seemed to be regarding their fanaticism and you said you were nearly killed up there by an IRA bomb. I'm beginning to think you may well be an Ulsterman yourself Recedite. Because otherwise you really don't know what those folk were capable of.

recedite

Jesus. wrote: »

I'm beginning to think you may well be an Ulsterman yourself Recedite. .

I am not, but even if i was, I don't see how that would invalidate my opinion.

And even if it were remotely possible for half of the population of 6 counties to control all the people in 32 counties via a military dictatorship, it assumes that unionists would support such a thing, which is nonsense.

LordSutch

Its so impossible to say with any certainty, but I would imagine that we would have finally arrived at the same "train station" in 2016 as we would have arrived at, had the 1916-1922 troubles not occoured, albeit through very different waters en route to our present destination!

As part of the UK we would be very much like Scotland, Wales, or many of the Northern English regions. We would have the NHS (free GP care), free dental care too... we would be part of Nato, we would be part of the United Kingdom on the World Stage, we would be part of a seventy million strong economy with a devolved Government in Dublin (linked to London-Belfast-Cardiff-Edinburgh). Dublin would have a small Metro type underground train network, Dun laoghaire Kingstown would be a major hub of international import export, Cork would have a large multinational population with a large airport to match its international connenections, with Galway being the European USA economic hub. The population of the island would be fifteen million people, the Royal Mail would have its international sorting office in Limerick, Michael D Higgins would have an OBE, Gerry Adams & Martin McGuinness would be in prison for trying to create terrorism, & the leaders of the 1916 rising would never have been in the history books (as they kept their crazed blood lust dreams to themselves). No Priest ridden society in the decades since 1922. Still very much part of the Commonwealth too. Massive Nissan car plant in the midlands. > Red phone boxes, green buses, green 'London style' TaXi's in Dublin, trams, mono rail trains? + all manner of transport on a par with London (but on a smaller scale). RAF & Royal Naval bases in several locations, generating tens of thousands of defence jobs in Ireland.

Northern Ireland would however still be a seperate state, as the Unionist/Loyalist majority would never have wanted to be ruled from Dublin. So that turned out pretty much the same as it did anyway

There ya go, that's as good a guess as anybody elses . . .

Jesus.

LordSutch wrote: »

There ya go, that's as good a guess as anybody elses . . .

Not really! :pac:

Balmed Out

If there were no rising in 1916 im sure there would have been at a later date, wed just have a time frame a few years off.

Qualitymark

1916 and the subsequent War of Independence was the beginning of the fall of the British Empire - other colonies realised that the British were not all-powerful and the empire ceased to be.

1916 was an inspiration to the Russian revolutionaries; without 1916 it is possible that the 1917 Revolution would not have happened - Russia would have stayed in the war losing endless millions of lives; America might not have been pushed into going in on the side of Britain; the Treaty of Versailles with its brutal terms for Germany that caused famine in Germany in the 1920s might never have happened…

But even if the Rising hadn't happened in 1916, it would have happened at some stage.

Jesus.

^^
Sweet Jesus

LordSutch

That post #27 takes fantasy to a whole new level

Qualitymark

Since this is becoming abusive, I'm out of this discussion.

Eugene Norman

LordSutch wrote: »

Its so impossible to say with any certainty, but I would imagine that we would have finally arrived at the same "train station" in 2016 as we would have arrived at, had the 1916-1922 troubles not occoured, albeit through very different waters en route to our present destination!

As part of the UK we would be very much like Scotland, Wales, or many of the Northern English regions. We would have the NHS (free GP care), free dental care too... we would be part of Nato, we would be part of the United Kingdom on the World Stage, we would be part of a seventy million strong economy with a devolved Government in Dublin (linked to London-Belfast-Cardiff-Edinburgh). Dublin would have a small Metro type underground train network, Dun laoghaire Kingstown would be a major hub of international import export, Cork would have a large multinational population with a large airport to match its international connenections, with Galway being the European USA economic hub. The population of the island would be fifteen million people, the Royal Mail would have its international sorting office in Limerick, Michael D Higgins would have an OBE, Gerry Adams & Martin McGuinness would be in prison for trying to create terrorism, & the leaders of the 1916 rising would never have been in the history books (as they kept their crazed blood lust dreams to themselves). No Priest ridden society in the decades since 1922. Still very much part of the Commonwealth too. Massive Nissan car plant in the midlands. > Red phone boxes, green buses, green 'London style' TaXi's in Dublin, trams, mono rail trains? + all manner of transport on a par with London (but on a smaller scale). RAF & Royal Naval bases in several locations, generating tens of thousands of defence jobs in Ireland.

Northern Ireland would however still be a seperate state, as the Unionist/Loyalist majority would never have wanted to be ruled from Dublin. So that turned out pretty much the same as it did anyway

There ya go, that's as good a guess as anybody elses . . .

We'd more likely be a forgotten backwater like Wales.