Can Ireland Avoid Partition?

Quite possibly, but there were elements of the British military that would have fought with the loyalists. There could well have been a British civil war over Home Rule
Yeah, but if the Brits were mobilizing/mobilized to fight WWI at the time, I'd think there wouldn't be many sympathetic soldiers would desert or refuse to deploy to the Western Front in order to fight against Home Rule.
That's not quite correct in my opinion. There would have been civil war in Ireland, but not on the mainland, where at best supportive rioting and maybe political violence, but not civil war.

Quite simply, the British government faced two powder-kegs in 1914: War on the continent or civil war in Ireland. Either one likely precludes British involvement in the other.

Also, the OTL decision of the UVF to vigorously support and join the army at the outbreak of war shows a greater commitment to King and Country. They wouldn't desert from the war.

That being said, what happens after the war ends and demobbed, then its a real bun fight.
 
Would Collins have pressed for a delay on the Withdrawal Clause, as I suggested earlier? I feel like ten years gives the best chance for Ireland to remain unified as by 1932 the global depression is in full swing and if Britain is seen to have it worse than Ireland the residents of the north might choose to stay with Ireland. If this doesn't work the only other POD I can think of is the WWII one.

Highly unlikely, the 6 Counties would never, ever voluntarily consent to to being incorporated into a united Ireland under any circumstances and everyone knew it.
That leaves conquering the area by force, however the IRA even if every British soldier disappeared couldn't do it. They fought a highly successful guerilla war in the South where they had the support of the majority of the population and were able to burn out and intimidate the 15-20% who were loyal to the Crown. In the North the situation would be reversed, at this point, prior to 60 years of high Catholic birthrates and migration to the North Loyalists had massive (70%+) demographics majorities in every county. In the highly unlikely event that the IRA could actually conquer the area (the UVF won't magically disappear) securing it would require the sort of atrocities that would completely destroy any international support and certainly revive British willingness to defend their kith and kin.

As for some kind of joint sovereignty with a final decision at a later date,
a.) The Great Depression hit Ireland harder than the UK.
b.) This had long since passed the point where economics mattered. Ireland's independence was for the first 60 years massively economically harmful, as can be seen by the comparative economic growth rates between the Republic and Ulster. If people had voted solely because of their pocketbook there would have been massive Unionist majorities all over Ireland until the mid 1990's.
 
What if the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1914 had been passed earlier and implemented prior to World War One commencing?
The Government of Ireland Act was certain to permit partition; the only question was whether Tyrone and Fermanagh would be in the north.
 

Falkenburg

Monthly Donor
The thing about negotiations is that they are that, a negotiation: you have to be willing to compromise and trade. De Valera doesn’t exactly have a reputation for compromise.

Frankly, the Long Fellow should have gone to the negotiations.
Personally, I subscribe to the view that he knew a compromise was inevitable, by that point, and wished to insulate himself from the ramifications.

It made little sense, IMO, to send Collins.
Far better to have kept him at home, with a firm hand on the tiller, as an ace in the hole (in the event of a resumption of hostilities).

That aside, the only way I see to avoid Partition would have been to avoid the Rising (and its' Aftermath).

Have the King weigh in on the side of Home Rule as a lesser evil than internecine conflict.
This could have a sobering effect upon the public discourse and could be sold to the Monarch as a way of demonstrating the way the Crown transcends politics.
That may require a stronger expression of 'Unity through the Crown' but (absent the Rising/Aftermath) could be possible.

It would also open great opportunities for ATLs - "What if...No Newgrange Intervention?" :p

When the Great War occurs integrate the 'Ulster' and 'Irish' Volunteers and have the shared experiences forge bonds that transcend the sectarian divides.

With no Rising, or an abortive attempt exposed by O'Neill, Ireland focuses on the shared sacrifices on the Western Front.

Post War, Home Rule is grudgingly accepted but is made to work as a pragmatic necessity.
Ireland struggles through the 20s and 30s, leaning leftwards under the blows of the Depression.

Relations with Britain are occasionally fraught but essentially solid, if only from economic necessity.

The Second World War sees Ireland standing at Britains' shoulder and benefiting greatly from an industrial boom.
Shared suffering, at home and abroad, including the Dublin and Belfast Blitzes, further cements internal cohesion.

Post WWII, Ireland develops along 'Canadian' or 'Australian' lines, active in the Commonwealth, acknowledging the Crown as a unifying symbol, but effectively independent.

This scenario sees a less 'Celtic' Ireland, industrialised to a greater extent (and consequently more Left wing), freed from the dead hand of confessional politics and Republican/Unionist ideological shibboleths.

Falkenburg
 
In the North the situation would be reversed, at this point, prior to 60 years of high Catholic birthrates and migration to the North Loyalists had massive (70%+) demographics majorities in every county.

I'm not sure where you're deriving this version of history from.

The Catholic proportions of the population in the six counties that became Northern Ireland in 1911 were:

Antrim (including Belfast): 24.8%
Armagh: 45.3%
Down: 25.9%
Fermanagh: 56.2%
Londonderry (including the city): 45.8%
Tyrone: 55.4%

(http://www.histpop.org/resources/pngs/0454/00100/00014_50.png)

There may have been a higher Catholic birthrate during the 60 years after the Treaty in Northern Ireland, but there was also a far higher rate of emigration from Northern Ireland among Catholics. It was not until the 1960s that the Catholic proportion of the population began to increase.
 
You're making the mistake of equating Loyalist=Protestant, while the strength of Catholic Unionism varied from nearly non-existent in the West it was strongest in Ulster and Dublin and a potent political force at this point commanding the loyalty of a near significant minorities (30-40%) of Catholics in some areas. That said my 75% figure is probably too high for Tyrone and Fermanagh, probably more like 60%. Either way far higher than anywhere in the South.
 
You're making the mistake of equating Loyalist=Protestant, while the strength of Catholic Unionism varied from nearly non-existent in the West it was strongest in Ulster and Dublin and a potent political force at this point commanding the loyalty of a near significant minorities (30-40%) of Catholics in some areas. That said my 75% figure is probably too high for Tyrone and Fermanagh, probably more like 60%. Either way far higher than anywhere in the South.

I'm reasonably aware of my own country's history, thanks.

Sinn Féin took an overall majority of the vote in the 1918 general election in Fermanagh (http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/h1918.htm) and the combined vote for the IPP and SF in Tyrone (where there were tactical withdrawals on the nationalist side) comfortably outpolled the Unionist candidates. The 1920 local elections - held under proportional representation - produced nationalist majorities on Fermanagh and Tyrone county councils.

I'm sorry, but this stuff of yours about the supposed strength of Catholic Unionism in what was to become Northern Ireland comes across as frankly delusional. Do you have any evidence to back up your 30-40% "in some areas" figure?
 
Top