Adam Barton

[Wangball]

Btw I didn't know we were pals? I dont think i even know you!

Must of been a Freudian slip from me Pal, whoops did again sorry Paul......

[SwanVsDalton]

Think Wangball assumed you were pals since you appeared to be making a pass at him...

[tetsujin1979]

Adam Barton added to Irish Abroad: http://irish-abroad.appspot.com/Play...playerID=51268
Quite a lot of starts for a 20 year old, although at the moment he hasn't started since 19th February

[Stuttgart88]

OK, Blatter's English might not be perfect, but "birthright" is a fairly straightforward word i.e. "by right of birth". He didn't qualify his point with talk of "heritage" (or ancestry) that I recall, nor was it alluded to in the BBC/Sunday Life report.

A day late (I'm a bit slow, and I don't have the legal mind that you & others here seem to have), but "birthright" may not be as straightforward a word as you assume it to be. You're assuming that it refers to place of birth, but couldn't it just as equally refer to the family you're born into, regradless of place of birth? It's my birthright to be an Irish national even though I was born in the UK, and my kids' birthright too. They just have to let the Dept. of Foreign Affairs (or whoever) know about it, because they wouldn't know otherwise.

Anyway, you have justifiably excused yourself from responding. Enjoy your trip. Perhaps someone else could offer an opinion on my interpretation?

[EalingGreen]

OK, let's give it a go.

I'll refer to the example of Bobby Zamora, as geysir did in the eligibility thread. He represented England at under-21 level prior to being called into the senior Trinidad and Tobago squad, for who he was also eligible through his father, a number of years later in 2009. He pulled out of the squad due to injury, however, before making an appearance for them and later went on to receive a senior cap in 2010 with England during a friendly against Hungary.

Then there's Michael O'Connor, who is much closer to home. O'Connor captained Northern Ireland at every level below under-21 level, which is when he decided to declare for us. Subsequently, he was called into our under-21 squad but never made an appearance. He then went on to play for Northern Ireland once again at under-21 level and later at competitive 'A' international level.

It would appear that each of those players made two changes of association: England to Trinidad and Tobago and back to England again for Zamora; Northern Ireland to Ireland and back to Northern Ireland again for O'Connor. However, as we know, article 18 only permits one change of association. Thus, the assumption has to be that Zamora's "switch" from England to Trinidad and Tobago and O'Connor's "switch" from Northern Ireland to Ireland must not have been deemed to be formal changes of association at all in FIFA's eyes due to the fact that neither player ever lined out for their "new" association.

Tony Kane is another player relevant here. His situation is slightly different to the two aforementioned as he made what would appear to be two changes of association - from the IFA to the FAI and back to the IFA again - and actually lined out for both associations' teams on each respective occasion. He played for Northern Ireland at under-18 and under-19 level before going on to represent Ireland at under-21 level. All his games for Ireland were non-competitive. He then switched back to Northern Ireland for whom he went on to play competitively at under-21 level as well as having received a call-up into the senior squad.

The implication of this is that FIFA must only deem a competitive appearance to effect a formal change of association. In their eyes, assuming all Kane's appearances for Ireland at under-21 level were non-competitive (Wikipedia claims they were with citations), it would seem that he was never deemed to have made a change of association at all. The same applies to Zamora and O'Connor.

And so, to consider Barton's case:

i) Barton is a British citizen from birth.
ii) He's eligible to play for Northern Ireland by virtue of having a grandparent born there. This also entitles him to claim Irish citizenship.
iii) Barton is called up to the Northern Ireland squad and plays in a non-competitive senior friendly game against Morocco.
iv) Barton is later called into Ireland's under-21 squad for a non-competitive friendly against Portugal.
v) Presumably, at some point before being called up to represent Ireland, Barton has registered his birth with the Foreign Births Register in Ireland and has acquired a permanent Irish citizenship effective from the date of registration.
vi) Because Barton never made a competitive appearance for Northern Ireland, if he goes on to represent us in a competitive fixture, it is entirely plausible that FIFA will not have considered him to have made any change of association, but rather, merely declared for what you might call an original association.

Naturally, to represent us in the first place, he would have to possess Irish nationality before hand rather than having acquired it whilst with another association; of course, he hasn't been registered with another association. Thus, he is not acquiring or assuming a new nationality to make a change of association. In these circumstances, once Barton was to make a competitive appearance for Ireland, it is possible that his nationality would be officially registered with FIFA as solely or primarily Irish as there would have been no need for them to take heed or keep record of his irrelevant British nationality given that his Irish nationality is also permanent in nature from the date he registered his birth with the Foreign Births Register and not dependent on residence. In effect, what I'm saying is that he is possibly qualifying to play for us via the provision laid out in article 15. If Barton was to later go on and represent England, however, after playing a competitive game for us, but not a competitive 'A' international fixture, I could see how he would then be considered to be assuming a new nationality for the purposes of changing association despite British having been his nationality from birth.

Does that make sense/add up?

Missing my point. When Zamora and O'Connor etc switched back and forth, there was no limit to the number of times someone could switch between Associations which one was entitled to represent.
However when, in 2009, the Associations of FIFA voted to remove the bar on switches after the age of 21, it was also agreed that henceforth players may only switch once.

As I understand it, according to FIFA, Barton's "first nationality" is Northern Irish, since that is the first Association he has represented. And since it was a friendly, he wasn't tied to us, so his one switch is still open to him. This switch may be made to any Association for which he is eligible (naturally), as far as the IFA/NW was concerned, this was only likely to be England.

Therefore he must be entitled to switch to the FAI, but only if that is an Association which he is eligible to represent. On which point, I do not believe he is so eligible under Article 15, since he doesn't meet the "birthright test". Rather, I believe he must be deemed to be "acquiring a new Nationality", as per Article 17. In which case, I believe he fails this test, since was not born in the territory of the FAI, he has never resided in said territory, nor has he a parent/grandparent who was born within said territory.

As ever, I am open to correction, but no-one on this forum (or elsewhere) has yet managed to persuade me that my interpretation of the situation is flawed.

P.S. There is one possible "complication" in the Barton case. If despite Barton's friendly cap for NI, he has not yet actually been assigned "Norn Iron Nationality" by FIFA, might this mean that the FAI have called him up for their U-21's on the basis that he could still revert to England i.e. such a reversion would be his first "proper" switch? I don't personally think so, for surely the fact of playing a senior game must mean that he is presently seen as Norn Iron? (The fact that it was friendly just means it didn't prevent him from using his one switch).
If so, then he really is a bit of a snake, and the FAI would be being devious to accommodate him and/or foolish to trust him.
But in either case, whether it be his first switch, or no switch at all, I really don't see how he is eligible for the FAI (as I state above).

It has nothing to do with entitlement from birth though. FIFA's rules mention nothing about entitlement from birth. Rather, it has to do with the nationality being of a permanent nature and not reliant on residence.

Article 15 is, imo, very badly phrased (or at least, not as clearly phrased as it might be).
My guess is that this is so for the following reason. Originally the provisions and application of Nationality/Eligibility etc was much looser (eg Di Stefano playing senior competitive football for 3 countries!). Thejn, as international football became more competitive/lucrative etc and many more countries joined FIFA (therefore boundary disputes etc), they needed to tighten up, since certain Associations were persuading their Governments to confer Nationality on untied prospects with little or no connection to their "new" country.
Eventually the first steps taken by FIFA to control this abuse were:
(a ) to disallow eligibility for those players who were only entitled to their new Nationality whilst they resided in the country in question, and
(b ) to disallow eligibility for those players who were only given time-limited (i.e. not permanent) Nationality.
(Basically this prevented some eg South American signing for eg a European club, acquiring the relevant Passport in consequence, playing for his new country, then having his Nationality revoked either when he emigrated again, or retired from football.

Anyhow, that is my understanding of the phrasing of Article 15, with it's "permanent" and not "dependant upon residence" etc. And in any case, neither of those provisions conflicts with Blatter's "birthright" requirement (imo).

[paul_oshea]

Did you write all that on the plane

[paul_oshea]

A day late (I'm a bit slow, and I don't have the legal mind that you & others here seem to have), but "birthright" may not be as straightforward a word as you assume it to be. You're assuming that it refers to place of birth, but couldn't it just as equally refer to the family you're born into, regradless of place of birth? It's my birthright to be an Irish national even though I was born in the UK, and my kids' birthright too. They just have to let the Dept. of Foreign Affairs (or whoever) know about it, because they wouldn't know otherwise.

Anyway, you have justifiably excused yourself from responding. Enjoy your trip. Perhaps someone else could offer an opinion on my interpretation?

Unfortunately stutts, opinions have got us nowhere thus far, just boring pages of hither and tither. I believe my original interpretation(me personally) is right, based on the facts at present. Obviouslly lawyers themselves don't fully understand - at least the ones who represented the IFA - the only ones who do are FIFA(executives/lawyers etc), perhaps somebody could email them and ask what all these terms mean in the context of the Irish dilemna? Whoever that is better not make them have a rethink

[EalingGreen]

A day late (I'm a bit slow, and I don't have the legal mind that you & others here seem to have), but "birthright" may not be as straightforward a word as you assume it to be. You're assuming that it refers to place of birth, but couldn't it just as equally refer to the family you're born into, regradless of place of birth? It's my birthright to be an Irish national even though I was born in the UK, and my kids' birthright too. They just have to let the Dept. of Foreign Affairs (or whoever) know about it, because they wouldn't know otherwise.

One moment Blatter's English is not up to the mark, the next his English is capable of connoting the above nuancing etc. Make your mind up.

As I recall, he was referring to Gibson, not his family/heritage/background etc, to make the point that he is an Irish National by right of his birth (in Ireland), therefore he comes under Article 15.

As for your kids etc, the process of entering the Register might be quick and simple etc, but whether simple or protracted, as I and Osarusan etc believe, they are not officially Irish Nationals until so-registered, nor is the process retroactive. Ditto Barton.

Anyway, you have justifiably excused yourself from responding. Enjoy your trip. Perhaps someone else could offer an opinion on my interpretation?

OK, this time I really am off...

[Stuttgart88]

One moment Blatter's English is not up to the mark, the next his English is capable of connoting the above nuancing etc. Make your mind up.

In either instance I'm merely offering the opinion that there is more to the term "birth right" than you appear to acknowledge. It's not a question of having to make my mind up.

[DannyInvincible]

Missing my point. When Zamora and O'Connor etc switched back and forth, there was no limit to the number of times someone could switch between Associations which one was entitled to represent.
However when, in 2009, the Associations of FIFA voted to remove the bar on switches after the age of 21, it was also agreed that henceforth players may only switch once.

Nonsense. Have a read of article 15.3 (a) from the 2004 Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes that came into force on the 1st of January of that year:

Up to his 21st birthday, a player may only once request changing the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches.

It's stuff like that that genuinely forces me to regularly questioning your sincerity.

You may as well reformulate three quarters of your post as it was composed almost entirely upon the incorrect assumption that players could move between as many associations as they wished prior to 2009.

As I understand it, according to FIFA, Barton's "first nationality" is Northern Irish, since that is the first Association he has represented.

What exactly has inspired such an understanding? Surely, as far as FIFA are concerned, he's never represented Northern Ireland.

On which point, I do not believe he is so eligible under Article 15, since he doesn't meet the "birthright test".

Where are you getting this stuff from? Article 15 doesn't contain a "birthright test".

Article 15 is, imo, very badly phrased (or at least, not as clearly phrased as it might be).

You would say that though. After all, it doesn't fit your agenda. I'm sure FIFA are content, as CAS were, that it does exactly what it sets out to do.

Anyhow, that is my understanding of the phrasing of Article 15, with it's "permanent" and not "dependant upon residence" etc. And in any case, neither of those provisions conflicts with Blatter's "birthright" requirement (imo).

Nobody's said they do conflict. To the contrary, in fact, it is being argued that citizenship by birthright is just one of the who-knows-how-many categories of nationality that fall under the scope of the article just so long as they're permanent and not dependent on residence.

As for your kids etc, the process of entering the Register might be quick and simple etc, but whether simple or protracted, as I and Osarusan etc believe, they are not officially Irish Nationals until so-registered, nor is the process retroactive. Ditto Barton.

This is correct. Irish nationality in this instance takes effect from the date of registration and is not retroactive to the moment of birth.

As ever, I am open to correction, but no-one on this forum (or elsewhere) has yet managed to persuade me that my interpretation of the situation is flawed.

Well, hopefully I've given you some food for thought upon your return from Serbia. Enjoy the game.

[DannyInvincible]

A day late (I'm a bit slow, and I don't have the legal mind that you & others here seem to have), but "birthright" may not be as straightforward a word as you assume it to be. You're assuming that it refers to place of birth, but couldn't it just as equally refer to the family you're born into, regradless of place of birth? It's my birthright to be an Irish national even though I was born in the UK, and my kids' birthright too. They just have to let the Dept. of Foreign Affairs (or whoever) know about it, because they wouldn't know otherwise.

Anyway, you have justifiably excused yourself from responding. Enjoy your trip. Perhaps someone else could offer an opinion on my interpretation?

I can't fault your reasoning and it's something I hadn't really considered. In effect, Barton would have a birthright to Irish nationality.

Although it's not really all that relevant to the eligibility issue so long as article 15 mentions nothing about birthright, but, rather, raises the criteria of permanence independent of residence.

[Gather round]

I think EG's going to Flanders actually. Most of us missed out on Serbia because we hadn't booked travel etc. when the game was declared closed.

[DannyInvincible]

I see, I see.

[Stuttgart88]

Where are you getting this stuff from? Article 15 doesn't contain a "birthright test".

This is correct. Irish nationality in this instance takes effect from the date of registration and is not retroactive to the moment of birth.

EG's "birthright test" refers to Blatter's remark that seemly offered qualification to the ambiguous (to me) term "permanent nationality". Going along with this line of thought I'm suggesting that the term "birthright" is itself ambiguous, and is just as likely to cover the family one is born into, rather than the place one was born.

This would cover those needing to complete the FBR process. Even though they may not officially be Irish nationals until it is completed, they may also qualify under art. 15 by passing EG's "birthright" test. They certainly aren't Irish by "sole virtue of residence" or whatever the other point is that FIFA refers to. So maybe FIFA needs to make a third distinction.

Either way, surely, as in all law*, the whole thing is determined by precedent? The precedents in this whole issue support the FAI and it appears FIFA is not displeased with this.

*or does this not constitute case law?

[Stuttgart88]

it is being argued that citizenship by birthright is just one of the who-knows-how-many categories of nationality that fall under the scope of the article just so long as they're permanent and not dependent on residence.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.

[DannyInvincible]

EG's "birthright test" refers to Blatter's remark that seemly offered qualification to the ambiguous (to me) term "permanent nationality". Going along with this line of thought I'm suggesting that the term "birthright" is itself ambiguous, and is just as likely to cover the family one is born into, rather than the place one was born.

This would cover those needing to complete the FBR process. Even though they may not officially be Irish nationals until it is completed, they may also qualify under art. 15 by passing EG's "birthright" test. They certainly aren't Irish by "sole virtue of residence" or whatever the other point is that FIFA refers to. So maybe FIFA needs to make a third distinction.

Either way, surely, as in all law*, the whole thing is determined by precedent? The precedents in this whole issue support the FAI and it appears FIFA is not displeased with this.

*or does this not constitute case law?

I'm aware of what Blatter said but he wasn't offering any clarification as to the meaning of anything in article 15. He was merely clarifying how Gibson et al qualified to play for us, but it needn't necessarily be the only way by which an Irish national might qualify to play for us, assuming "birthright" were to refer only to those actually born in Ireland to an Irish national.

You're correct that the term itself is ambiguous and, indeed, that would only offer EG's interpretation further problems; to say that Adam Barton has a birthright to Irish citizenship would mean that he would also fall under the scope of this apparent exclusive test of Blatter's.

Precedent relates to case law arising from legislation that is already in place as it provides a guide, rule or general indication on how it ought to be interpreted. The notion of precedent doesn't really come into play in the construction of new legislation, however, as new legislation can replace old legislation at any time to better suit prevailing circumstances. It doesn't really make sense outside the sphere of case law, but obviously if "precedent" was to bind those entrusted with formulating legislation (the legislature) - as opposed to those interpreting it (the judiciary) - it would kind of render the whole legislative process rather pointless as the law would be incapable of amendment.

[DannyInvincible]

Unfortunately stutts, opinions have got us nowhere thus far, just boring pages of hither and tither.

You love it really.

I believe my original interpretation(me personally) is right, based on the facts at present. Obviouslly lawyers themselves don't fully understand - at least the ones who represented the IFA - the only ones who do are FIFA(executives/lawyers etc), perhaps somebody could email them and ask what all these terms mean in the context of the Irish dilemna? Whoever that is better not make them have a rethink

A rethink is unlikely considering they've never wavered.

Anyhow, I don't think they'll bother responding, but I sent off a query from here anyway. I fear the form is for Mickey Mouse queries, but I couldn't see any other contact address on the site besides one for ticketing information at the 2010 World Cup.

Anyone want to give them a buzz?

Where can I read your interpretation, by the way?

[Stuttgart88]

Danny, is there a link to the full CAS explanation you can post? Apols if it's already here somewhere.

[Not Brazil]

Danny, is there a link to the full CAS explanation you can post? Apols if it's already here somewhere.

Here you go:

http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...ard%202071.pdf

[shakermaker1982]

Do some of you guys work in the legal profession?