Player eligibility row [Archive] - Page 9

Nedser

12/03/2010, 12:01 AM

Neither Irish nor UK passport is evidence of eligibility to play for NI. The passport required by the match official is for evidence of identity not eligibility.

As you've repeatedly said, UK (or British) nationality is required for someone to be eligible for NI. Also, every player is required to produce a passport before each game. Given that all players who play for NI must be British, it would not be unreasonable for FIFA to insist that the passport they provide states that their nationality is British. It's actually absurd that they accept a passport that states that the players nationality is "Irish" when in fact the players must hold a different nationality to be eligible. The only reason I can see that they do is because they caved to political pressure from the Irish govt re the unique political situation in NI and made an exception. Again, just another one of the anomalies that epitomises the whole existence of the NI "national" team.

There is no Northern Irish Nationality which entitles a player to be eligible for 2 Associations.

I'm well aware of that - in fact I have pointed out numerous times on this thread that Northern Irish nationality doesn't exist. I'm beginning to think you haven't even read my posts, which is fine, but if not please stop replying to what you incorrectly think I'm saying.

Article 16 refers only to a players nationality allowing him to be eligible for >1 Association. It does not refer to a dual nationality making a player eligible for > 1 Association. The Nationality that applies to Art 16 is British nationality. Under article 15 a British citizen would be eligible for 4 Association, Article 16 defines the eligibility for British natinality in regards to each of the 4 Associations. Irish nationality does not make a player eligible for a British Association. NI is British. The status of NI in the UK has not changed.

Again, if you had actually read my previous post, you would be aware that I agree with the above interpretation of Article 16, and I'm confident that's what FIFA meant. However, Article 16 is not worded clearly, and where there is ambiguity there is room for legal argument. It seems clear that the IFA's case is that Article 16 could in fact be interpreted to apply to anyone who is eligible for 2 associations based on nationality (i.e. even someone who is eligible for two associations because they have 2 nationalities). Just to be absolutely clear in case you aren't willing to go back and read my post properly, I don't agree with that interpretation, but I believe that's what the IFA's case is.

No I have not changed. NI born have an automatic right to Brit or Irish citizenship or both. They still have to do an action in order to exercise that right to be identified as an Irish national (eg ask to be chosen for the FAI), but post GFA they do not have to acquire the citizenship before or while exercising their right to be identified fully as a natural born Irish national (eg application for passport).

Eh, that is a change. Now you're saying the have an automatic right to British or Irish citizenship. That has never been disputed by anyone in this thread AFAIK. That is very different to automatically having both citizenships, which you insisted was the case in at least 2 posts in response to me. You were determined to contradict my statement that they could choose one or the other or both, yet in your post before this one you said pretty much exactly what I said in the first place. You're not in politics are you?

You would be confused if you do not understand article 16 when it states clearly
"A Player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality"

It states nationality, singular, not (dual) nationalities plural. There is no Northern Ireland singular nationality.

Again, I ask you to please go back and read my posts in full before replying.

DannyInvincible

12/03/2010, 9:11 AM

This is actually very interesting as there are 2 ways that I can see of interpreting Article 16:

1. It means that if nationality of one country (i.e. UK) entitles you to represent more than one association (i.e. NI, Scotland, Wales or England), then in addition to holding UK nationality, you also have to satisfy one of the conditions in Article 16. I think this is what it means - i.e. it's just to ensure that people with UK nationality aren't automatically entitled to play for 4 different national teams (a la Maik Taylor).

2. It could also be interpreted to mean that if a player has more than one nationality, then he must meet one of the criteria in Article 16 in addition to holding that nationality. In other words, if a player was born in Belfast and holds both Irish and British nationality, then he would only be eligible for ROI if he meets criteria b, c or d in Article 16. I think this is what the IFA are arguing. The sad thing is, they might have a case, as the wording above is not 100% clear.

If the IFA successfully argue that interpretation 2 is correct, then it gets more interesting, as it would mean players born in the North would generally not be eligible for ROI if they hold both British and Irish nationality, but they would be eligible for ROI if they hold Irish nationality only. Geysir insists that everyone born in NI is automatically both British and Irish, whereas others, including myself and Mr Parker, believe they have the right to choose, as that's what the GFA states.

The wording of the GFA is easily available online, but I know that the effect of it is definitely to allow people born in Northern Ireland to claim either British or Irish nationality, or both. So you can be officially recognised as solely Irish, solely British or both British and Irish at the same time.

The important thing, which I think has been pointed out above and leaves me confident and satisfied that we are interpreting the rules correctly is that there is no single nationality which allows a player born in Northern Ireland to play for both Northern Ireland and Ireland. Irish nationality is required to play for Ireland whilst British nationality is presumably required to play for Northern Ireland as well as a relationship with that territory, as per Article 16. Even if one born in Northern Ireland holds both British and Irish nationalities, those are still two distinct nationalities held at the one time. They don't morph to form one single new nationality. If they did, then Article 16 might come into play regarding cases like Gibson. However, as it stands, it need not come into effect as Gibson is perfectly eligible to play under Article 15 with no need for recourse to any other article. Article 15 mentions that it requires the likes of Gibson to hold "permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in [Ireland]". Gibson satisfies this. The reason that brings nationality independent of residence into the equation is due to the Qatar case a few years ago where the association there tried to make eligible a couple of Brazilians who'd been awarded fast-track citizenship after spending a few seasons playing there. Not sure of the exact details but that was the general jist of it.

Israel is another interesting case I've just been thinking about. As far as I know, Israel awards citizenship to any person who can prove Jewish heritage (religious belief?). Does this make any Jew worldwide technically eligible to play for Israel so long as they satisfy its conditions for citizenship?

geysir

12/03/2010, 9:27 AM

Eh, that is a change. Now you're saying the have an automatic right to British or Irish citizenship. That has never been disputed by anyone in this thread AFAIK. That is very different to automatically having both citizenships, which you insisted was the case in at least 2 posts in response to me. You were determined to contradict my statement that they could choose one or the other or both, yet in your post before this one you said pretty much exactly what I said in the first place. You're not in politics are you?

Eh no Nedser. You have argued that NI born have a right to choose one or both Nationalities.

I have argued that they have the right to choose which or both to be identified as.
There is the difference. Even after all this discussion you do not understand the difference.
The GFA "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both"
Birthright is the established fact, the right to be identified as, is a choice.

Birthright as an establish fact, in the constitution/Nationality laws is automatic nationality, Lex Soli.

DannyInvincible

12/03/2010, 10:05 AM

Eh no Nedser. You have argued that NI born have a right to choose one or both Nationalities.

I have argued that they have the right to choose which or both to be identified as.
There is the difference. Even after all this discussion you do not understand the difference.

I don't mean to be argumentative as you offered what I believe to be a pretty much correct interpretation of the statutes above but what is the substantive or effectual difference exactly? Birth doesn't foist automatic citizenship upon anyone. It's just something that creates a right. I think we're getting bogged down in semantics or maybe I'm missing something. Northern-borns aren't deemed automatically British until they either decide to revoke that or apply for Irish citizenship. They're accorded the nationality of their parents' choosing upon birth. I was actually born in the south so I'm not sure of the whole procedure, but I don't think I'm incorrect. Is Nedser actually arguing otherwise? I'm not really so sure that he is. :/

geysir

12/03/2010, 10:34 AM

I don't mean to be argumentative as you offered what I believe to be a pretty much correct interpretation of the statutes above but what is the substantive or effectual difference exactly? Birth doesn't foist automatic citizenship upon anyone. It's just something that creates a right. I think we're getting bogged down in semantics or maybe I'm missing something. Northern-borns aren't deemed automatically British until they either decide to revoke that or apply for Irish citizenship. They're accorded the nationality of their parents' choosing upon birth. I was actually born in the south so I'm not sure of the whole procedure, but I don't think I'm incorrect. Is Nedser actually arguing otherwise? I'm not really so sure that he is. :/

Well, if you contemplate (imo, the absurdity of) the notion that a person born in Northern Ireland is a non national until that time he /she chooses a nationality, then you can appreciate the difference between,
choosing a nationality and having the right to choose which nationality (or both) they want to be identified as.

Pre GFA according to the Irish nationality act (1955?), a NI born had the birthright to apply for citizenship.
Post GFA, there is no need to apply for citizenship, Irish nationality is a birthright for NI born.
But they can just choose not to be identified as Irish.

The difference has significance in this debate with Nedser but I�d be boring you further by dragging up quotes :)

ArdeeBhoy

12/03/2010, 1:28 PM

Geysir/Nedser(or whoever),
Be interested in your response to my post #397, if so feel so inclined?

geysir

12/03/2010, 2:08 PM

[QUOTE]With regards to the North, have family born there. As far as we're all led to believe, it's an issue of choice as to whether they take a Brit.or Irish passport.
Yes, so far

Unsure if they can have both, but am sure at least one 'side' insists on revoking citizenship of the other, if not both.
They can have both. No need to revoke. The GFA ensures dual nationality as a birthright.

Also been told the only way you can have joint Irish-Brit.citizenship/passport rights is by marriage
For a person born in the North, dual citizenship dual passports is a birthright.
If you asking about the rights of a non Nordie who marries a Nordie, then they can acquire both Irish and British nationality according the Nationality law criteria of each, but of course it not a birthright, it is an acquired nationality.

Though don't know what happens in the case of divorce.
Could be relief.

DannyInvincible

12/03/2010, 3:53 PM

Well, if you contemplate (imo, the absurdity of) the notion that a person born in Northern Ireland is a non national until that time he /she chooses a nationality, then you can appreciate the difference between,
choosing a nationality and having the right to choose which nationality (or both) they want to be identified as.

Pre GFA according to the Irish nationality act (1955?), a NI born had the birthright to apply for citizenship.
Post GFA, there is no need to apply for citizenship, Irish nationality is a birthright for NI born.
But they can just choose not to be identified as Irish.

The difference has significance in this debate with Nedser but I�d be boring you further by dragging up quotes :)

So, are those born in the north considered both British and Irish by default from birth until a decision is made or what? It does seem absurd alright that their nationality would be left in limbo, so to speak, until some decision is made, but then again, Northern Ireland is a bit of an absurd construction... I'm still not so sure what the major distinction is as far as the end result is concerned under the relevant governing nationality laws of "choosing a nationality" and "having the right to choose a nationality they want to be identified as". Both involve a right surely, or is it that you're saying the former imposes an obligation to choose? Either way, there's surely an obligation to make some form of decision. I don't see how someone could go through life as a non-national. And at the end of the day, the choice is still between being officially recognised as Irish, British or as both. It's an obligation to choose at least one of those options. Not that I've seen specific legal instruments dictating such, but i just can't imagine how it could be otherwise. So, in effect, yo have a right of choice within an obligation.

I suppose what I also really want to know is, has this any bearing on the FIFA statutes or how we ought to interpret them?

Possibly I'm just further confusing matters... :P

geysir

12/03/2010, 4:46 PM

So, are those born in the north considered both British and Irish by default from birth until a decision is made or what? It does seem absurd alright that their nationality would be left in limbo, so to speak, until some decision is made, but then again, Northern Ireland is a bit of an absurd construction..
Absurd maybe, but not quite as absurd as the concept of Limbo.

. I'm still not so sure what the major distinction is as far as the end result is concerned under the relevant governing nationality laws of "choosing a nationality" and "having the right to choose a nationality they want to be identified as". Both involve a right surely, or is it that you're saying the former imposes an obligation to choose?
A Nordie has dual nationality.
A Southerner (freestater aargh!) has but one nationality.
The Nordie just has one more than the Southerner.
Simple.
The Nordie has not an obligation to choose which one he/she wants to be identified with. They have a right to choose which one (or both) of the nationalities they want to be identifed with.
Should a Nordie want to play for the IFA then they are exercising their right to be identified as a Brit.
Should a Nordie want to play for the FAI, they are exercising their right to be an Irish national.

Either way, there's surely an obligation to make some form of decision.
No obligation, a Nordie is a born dual national. NI is still British, though populated by a dual citizenry.

So, in effect, yo have a right of choice within an obligation.
No obligation, you just have a right to choose which nationality or both you want to be identified with.
�tis but the luxury of dual citizenship by birthright.

I suppose what I also really want to know is, has this any bearing on the FIFA statutes or how we ought to interpret them?
lets just say it�s all good from an FAI perspective and all gloom from an IFA perspective.
From a FIFA perspective, they would have to change article 15 in order to reverse that effect.

Gather round

12/03/2010, 7:51 PM

Some interesting points in recent pages.

but then again, Northern Ireland is a bit of an absurd construction...

All countries are human constructs, many show absurdities. The existence of Northern Ireland is utilitarian (basically the least inconvenience to the smallest number). The pre-1920s regime and any notional united Ireland in the future had/ would have an even larger disaffected minority.

I know it will not change the minds of most nationalists. Im just stating what the IFA need to do if they are to be taken serious about their "football for all" bullsh1te

Taken seriously by who? Not you, Dan the Man and Ardee Bhoy on this thread. You think NI shouldn't exist nor have a football team, so what relevance do flags and anthems, or any symbols, or stadium sites, or anything the IFA does have? You presumably aren't going to change your mind. Others both inside and outside already take the FFA improvements seriously.

travellers have been afforded numerous opportunities in the last 20 years to integrate into "normal" everyday life. They turned their back on most assistance and integration programs to a large extent (and thats putting it nicely)...Ireland is, for the most part, a tolerant and integrationist place

Stu, the Traveller community in both Ireland and Britain has suffered systematic discrimination for centuries, with resulting poor levels of health care, education, housing etc. The 2006 census showed that 50% of the community die before age 50. Forget putting it nicely, in both countries we need to do much more for them.

Yes, Ireland is for the most part a tolerant place. Of course I realise you mean the South, but even NI is much more so now than for much of my lifetime. That said, we shouldn't be complacent on either side of the border.

Its at times like this when I realise how lucky we are down here in the South where...everyone is free to express their views and be listened to no matter what their colour or creed is. I couldn't tell you what religion most of my neighbours are or what their allegiances are for any aspect of their lives and I couldnt care less. Things might be bad here at the moment but to have to make a choice for fear of discrimination on political or religious grounds where I go for leisure, education or anything else would crack me up

That's nice, but rest assured if you move to this country we have freedom of expression too, for all the greater political volatility. Segregation in housing, education etc. is something I regret but it's hardly unique to Northern Ireland. Similar situations exist, particularly in border regions in many other countries- Belgium most clearly in western Europe.

It's peculiar the issues the OWC get all hot and bothered about

It isn't. Us getting ****ed off by the Marie Jones play is little different to you (fans, FA, Lord Bonhead Hewson, populist government ministers) throwing a fit of hysterics about concealing a bad goal in St Denis. We felt hard done by, so we sulked. The Anti-Maze protest was a well-organised, well-supported and pretty much successful campagin against some dumb (largely English) politicians planning to spunk hundreds of millions on a vanity project. I'm puzzled why you think on the one hand that we're less agitated by the anthem issue (in reality we aren't, mainstream media and web boards are currently full of it), then say it would make little difference anyway. Although of course to many it wouldn't make much difference simply because it never has. It's one tuneless, old-fashioned dirge about fighting foreigners compared with another. Little difference to many.

Yes, the NI team is mainly supported by unionists. That doesn't mean its appeal to anyone else is merely a veneeer. All are welcome.

DannyInvincible

12/03/2010, 8:15 PM

Unbelievably, I've just been suspended from the OWC forum until 8:52 PM on the 29th of May 2018 (ha!) for, presumably, posting this on the matter of eligibility.

QUOTE (Owen @ Mar 8 2010, 11:18 AM)
Now I personally believe that everyone from Northern Ireland is automatically a British citizen

Well, thankfully your personal prejudices matter little in this.

QUOTE (Owen @ Mar 10 2010, 10:11 AM)
If their Irish citizenship is held singularly (including those who hold ROI passports but play for NI) then they hold a citizenship which allows them to play for two countries and they fall within the remit of Article 16 (i.e. ROI and NI). If ROI citizenship only entitles a Northern player to play for the ROI then it must be dual British citizenship which entitles them to play for NI (Article 15 applies). This group is about making that explicit the implications of insisting that Article 15 is the relevant statute. It forces every Northern Ireland player to acknowldge British citizenship. Is the FAI prepared to argue that case? Does FIFA want to enforce it? I don't think so.

Hold on there. Irish nationality permits a player to represent Northern Ireland? Can someone born in, say, Dublin or Cork represent Northern Ireland? Of course not. Irish nationality allows a player to play for one country and one country only; Ireland. It is not an Irish passport that permits a player to represent Northern Ireland - not that that is a strict indication of sole nationality in this instance anyway - but, ultimately, it is a recognition of his British nationality (which can be recognised dually) in whatever specific case that allows him to play for Northern Ireland. The amendment of the IFA's old British-passport-needed-to-travel demand was simply a superficial or symbolic cross-community gesture which now allows Northern Ireland players to travel on Irish passports if they so wish. One thing is for certain though; it is not their Irish nationality they are exercising whilst playing for Northern Ireland. The IFA still has to satisfy FIFA that the player is of the correct and eligible nationality - regardless of what passport he holds - to represent Northern Ireland, which can only be British. Article 16 need not come into play with regard to the likes of Darron Gibson at all.

What rules could that possibly have contravened? What a tragic little corner of the internet.

DannyInvincible

12/03/2010, 8:38 PM

All countries are human constructs, many show absurdities. The existence of Northern Ireland is utilitarian (basically the least inconvenience to the smallest number). The pre-1920s regime and any notional united Ireland in the future had/ would have an even larger disaffected minority.

Interesting spin on partition, that.

Gather round

12/03/2010, 8:46 PM

Interesting spin on partition, that

It's a summary, not a spin. I'm sure you've seen it before.

Sorry about your ban from OWC- impressive after only 11 posts. But can't you just throw a spell or something and reverse it? Being invincible and all, like.

ArdeeBhoy

12/03/2010, 9:35 PM

They can have both. No need to revoke. The GFA ensures dual nationality as a birthright.

For a person born in the North, dual citizenship dual passports is a birthright.

Ok, fair enough and totally accept your reply but just to let you know my sister born in Beal-feirste was told differently by the Brit.authorities some years ago in the U.S.
And seems a pointless edict re.the dual citizenship. Not only does it legitimize their continued occupation, how many unionists/loyalists would want to be Irish. Or vice versa.
Also more interestingly, but what nos have both;Does anyone know?

All countries are human constructs, many show absurdities. The existence of Northern Ireland is utilitarian (basically the least inconvenience to the smallest number). The pre-1920s regime and any notional united Ireland in the future had/ would have an even larger disaffected minority.

Thanks to an illegal colonization. It hardly means that the whole place is legitimate especially as they've done nothing for the island except create a perpetual import of UJ's, such is their insecurity.
They inconvenienced the native population by enforcing a foreign state on them. And the British by claiming a massive net subsidy running into hundreds of billions and for what?

Others both inside and outside already take the FFA improvements seriously.
Yes, Messrs.Gibson, Duffy et. al. Not to mention the numerous fans from right across the six counties who support the Irish national team. Not some rump state which is a sad tribute to British colonialism.

Yes, Ireland is for the most part a tolerant place. Of course I realise you mean the South, but even NI is much more so now than for much of my lifetime. That said, we shouldn't be complacent on either side of the border.
Agreed. Though racist numptys in Ireland are on the rise, there's nothing to compare remotely with the sustained intimidation of various non-whites and Eastern Europeans, predominantly in South Beal-feirste.

It isn't. Us getting ****ed off by the Marie Jones play is little different to you (fans, FA, Lord Bonhead Hewson, populist government ministers) throwing a fit of hysterics about concealing a bad goal in St Denis. We felt hard done by, so we sulked.
I'm puzzled why you think on the one hand that we're less agitated by the anthem issue (in reality we aren't, mainstream media and web boards are currently full of it), then say it would make little difference anyway. Although of course to many it wouldn't make much difference simply because it never has. It's one tuneless, old-fashioned dirge about fighting foreigners compared with another. Little difference to many.
Clearly you don't know many nationalists. ;)

Yes, the NI team is mainly supported by unionists. That doesn't mean its appeal to anyone else is merely a veneeer. All are welcome.
No-one would even remotely believe that if you saw the level of paranoia on their favourite MB! And their bigots gurning about conceding any change to their flag or anthem.

What rules could that possibly have contravened? What a tragic little corner of the internet.
The paranoia I refer to there, is a terrible thing.
They even now have a whole Forum referring to the FAI referring to them as 'Football Apartheid(in) Ireland', FFS.

Maybe they should change their MB name to 'BRU', 'Bigots 'R' Us' ??

It's a summary, not a spin.

Of course it's a spin. And a farcical one at that.

Predator

12/03/2010, 11:48 PM

Unbelievably, I've just been suspended from the OWC forum until 8:52 PM on the 29th of May 2018 (ha!) for, presumably, posting this on the matter of eligibility.

What rules could that possibly have contravened? What a tragic little corner of the internet.
Cannot believe you've been banned for that. The responses afterwards don't even deal with your point. They're just (incorrectly) nit-picking minor details and being petty! I mean, of course a different opinion may rile you, but at least have the decency to engage. Banning you so harshly speaks volumes.

ArdeeBhoy

13/03/2010, 12:22 AM

Yeah, but if there was a Gold medal for that, those paranoid fools would be on the podium.

DannyInvincible

13/03/2010, 1:07 AM

It's a summary, not a spin. I'm sure you've seen it before.

To say that "all countries are human constructs, many show absurdities", as if they're all on a similar pedestal with the more unique, or bizarre, political climate of Northern Ireland, downplays the contemporary historical nature of the Northern Irish statelet and what exactly partition sought to achieve. As if institutional sectarianism was just another little quirk in the history of Western democracy. C'mon...

To further describe it as a utilitarian construct is an outright pretence; a complete misnomer. If I was as over-sensitive as the hardmen over on the OWC forum, I might even say you were offending me by your apparent masking over and dismissal of any notion of intense unhappiness and distress experienced by one side of the community due to a set of systematic policies designed to keep them in their place inferior and maintain the dominant group's dominance. It lets those who constructed Northern Ireland off the hook and, worse, conceals their manipulative interests. It also connotes a universally positive rationale for its establishment as if best serving the happiness of as many people as possible was the actual motive behind the manufacturing of Northern Ireland. Of course, it wasn't. The concerns of the minority didn't come into play at all. They were just a nuisance; a by-product of geo-politics. Numbers which needed to be cut by decreasing the boundary of the chosen land mass in order to create a Protestant majority that could wield control over as much property as it could deceptively claim a democratic mandate. It was arbitrarily gerrymandered with a heavy bias to suit one set of favoured people by creating an artificial majority, thus enabling them to maintain a hegemony over another. "Utilitarian" sounds far too fluffy and utopian for my liking, I'm afraid. Even the whole procedure itself along with the later maintenance of Northern Ireland bore no resemblance to how Britain's other imperial acquisitions were granted their independence nor did it follow the pattern of universally-accepted decolonisation implemented by other members of the "first world" who'd formerly taken a fancy to truly viewing the world as their oyster. For those reasons, I feel it is a one of the more absurd examples of all the states created by man, or certainly of those created in the Western world at least. Traditional democracy can't operate here even nowadays without fear of misuse of power. Just saying, like... I'm not that much of a fan of "neat" summations, as is probably obvious.

Sorry about your ban from OWC- impressive after only 11 posts. But can't you just throw a spell or something and reverse it? Being invincible and all, like.

Ha, I'm afraid my powers aren't working tonight. I forgot to eat my brussels sprouts for dinner.

I guess I best just take it as a compliment then. Was what I said that much of a threat to the established order on there that it necessitated a ban to be imposed upon me without any warning or notice whatsoever? Are you on there? I assume you are? Do you consider what I wrote offensive or abusive in any way from a Northern Ireland fan's perspective? :/ I thought it was rather tame to warrant an 8-year barring. The acutely specified time period does crack me up, but I am a bit disappointed otherwise. Sure I was only testing the water. :P

DannyInvincible

13/03/2010, 1:16 AM

Cannot believe you've been banned for that. The responses afterwards don't even deal with your point. They're just (incorrectly) nit-picking minor details and being petty! I mean, of course a different opinion may rile you, but at least have the decency to engage. Banning you so harshly speaks volumes.

Business as usual...

Nedser

13/03/2010, 7:08 AM

I have argued that they have the right to choose which or both to be identified as.
There is the difference. Even after all this discussion you do not understand the difference.

Pretty certain that's the first time you've said that actually. In post #391 you said simply "You have a right to choose Irish or British or both". In post #395 you said "NI born have an automatic right to Brit or Irish citizenship or both." Note the complete absence of the words "identified as" in those statements.

Your statements in posts #391 and #395 are inconsistent with your previous claim that "An Irish national born in the North is automatically a British national even if he/she never obtains a UK passport, even if he she only aspires to be an Irish citizen. NI born are automatic dual citizens".

Maybe you meant to insert the words "identified as" in your statements in posts #391 and #395, but you didn't, and I'm not psychic, so I can only go by what you actually write, not what you think you meant to write. And you'd think at least the second time round you'd have managed to clarify what you were trying to say.

I don't mean to be argumentative as you offered what I believe to be a pretty much correct interpretation of the statutes above but what is the substantive or effectual difference exactly? Birth doesn't foist automatic citizenship upon anyone. It's just something that creates a right. I think we're getting bogged down in semantics or maybe I'm missing something. Northern-borns aren't deemed automatically British until they either decide to revoke that or apply for Irish citizenship. They're accorded the nationality of their parents' choosing upon birth. I was actually born in the south so I'm not sure of the whole procedure, but I don't think I'm incorrect. Is Nedser actually arguing otherwise? I'm not really so sure that he is. :/

I'm certainly not arguing anything different to what you are saying, I fully agree with you.

geysir

13/03/2010, 8:12 AM

Pretty certain that's the first time you've said that actually. In post #391 you said simply "You have a right to choose Irish or British or both". In post #395 you said "NI born have an automatic right to Brit or Irish citizenship or both." Note the complete absence of the words "identified as" in those statements.

Your statements in posts #391 and #395 are inconsistent with your previous claim that "An Irish national born in the North is automatically a British national even if he/she never obtains a UK passport, even if he she only aspires to be an Irish citizen. NI born are automatic dual citizens".

jesus wept, again :)

Do me the honour of a proper quote and then count the nr of times identify is mentioned by me in those two replies you refer to

post 391

You have a right to choose Irish or British or both, but when a player choses (is chosen) to represent the IFA, he is doing so as a British national. He is exercising his right to be identified as a British national.

post 395

NI born have an automatic right to Brit or Irish citizenship or both. They still have to do an action in order to exercise that right to be identified as an Irish national (eg ask to be chosen for the FAI), but post GFA they do not have to acquire the citizenship before or while exercising their right to be identified fully as a natural born Irish national (eg application for passport).

Mr_Parker

13/03/2010, 10:35 AM

Unbelievably, I've just been suspended from the OWC forum until 8:52 PM on the 29th of May 2018 (ha!) for, presumably, posting this on the matter of eligibility.

What rules could that possibly have contravened? What a tragic little corner of the internet.

Nothing surprising there. They can't handle reasoned debate and when the going gets tough they play the man, not the ball and failing that ban him.

Mr_Parker

13/03/2010, 10:37 AM

As you've repeatedly said, UK (or British) nationality is required for someone to be eligible for NI. Also, every player is required to produce a passport before each game. Given that all players who play for NI must be British, it would not be unreasonable for FIFA to insist that the passport they provide states that their nationality is British. It's actually absurd that they accept a passport that states that the players nationality is "Irish" when in fact the players must hold a different nationality to be eligible. The only reason I can see that they do is because they caved to political pressure from the Irish govt re the unique political situation in NI and made an exception. Again, just another one of the anomalies that epitomises the whole existence of the NI "national" team.
.

Again you fail to realise that the passport is only used to identify the person, not their nationality. Nationality only needs proven to FIFA as a result of a challenge post game.

co. down green

13/03/2010, 10:49 AM

Post of the week on 'are We A Country' from long time poster Roger

For a long time, but not always, I have hated the FAI and that country with a passion.

Get a life lads !!

ifk101

13/03/2010, 11:59 AM

Post of the week on 'are We A Country' from long time poster Roger

For a long time, but not always, I have hated the FAI and that country with a passion.

Get a life lads !!

Do we need to take notice of Roger's feelings towards us? ;)

third policeman

13/03/2010, 12:48 PM

It's a summary, not a spin. I'm sure you've seen it before.

No it's a spin and believe me, it's what I do for a living. Here's another bit of spin; "a united Ireland would be more equitable because Unionist are a smaller percentage of the total population of Ireland than Nationalists are of the North's". Countries are constructs and so are their supposed legitimacies. The tragedy of this debate and Ireland in general is not that we live in different political entities but that we live in different linguistic and historical constructs. On this point yer man is right.

Predator

13/03/2010, 1:47 PM

I've said I'd relay any responses to Danny Invincible, you know, promoting a 'cross-messageboard' ethos. Here's his response to your 'offending' post.

[quote name='Owen' date='Mar 13 2010, 10:24 AM']
On first inspection, like 'the straw', I thought that there was a contradiction between the second and first parts of this. Actually, looking closer, I think we have a demonstration of the type of thinking which might allow the IFA to play the 'tolerant' card and come out as a winner. It's precisely what I'm talking about in the first instance.

1) My 'personal prejudices' are underpinned by UK citizenship law.

2) What this character is trying to say is that ROI citizenship is held singularly by nationalists in Northern Ireland and British citizenship is not conferred automatically upon those born here. However, if they want to, for instance, play for Northern Ireland, they are making an explicit declaration of British citizenship.

If the FAI go to the CAS and argue this then IFA should certainly invoke the Belfast Agreement in its favour. The GFA's very essence is that people should be equally entitled to play a full role IN NORTHERN IRELAND, irrespective of their identity or political allegiance. Unlike the ROI, the NI team has always included players irrespective of their politics or religion. No argument could demonstrate more clearly the will to politicise and segregate Irish football.

He is wrong, but he is not entirely wrong. The northern players who hold southern passports ARE actually dual citizens, due to the territorial basis of British citizenship law and the extraterritorial, irredentist basis of ROI citizenship law. Are the FAI prepared to argue on that basis? Or on the basis that ROI citizens, who satisfy the territorial tests of eligibility for NI, can only play for our team if they acknowledge that they are British?

That's what the IFA have to find out. The whole purpose of this group is to highlight the fact that the FAI needs to be forced to argue this on the basis of a very intolerant position. :clapping:

Here's the thread in question, if anybody is interested in the debate concerning the facebook agenda of 'Owen': http://ourweecountry.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=28385

DannyInvincible

13/03/2010, 4:01 PM

I've said I'd relay any responses to Danny Invincible, you know, promoting a 'cross-messageboard' ethos. Here's his response to your 'offending' post.

So, Predator has been keeping me in the loop regarding my suspension and it transpires I've apparently been suspended not for what I've said recently but over being "found out" for supposedly running two accounts at the one time, which is, indeed, news to me, seeing as I first set up my 'Danny Invincible' account there in 2007 and haven't signed up or in there under any other moniker since or before that to the best of my recollection. I'm really trying to rack my brain here, but three years is a long time, like... My supposed former account was particularly abusive, allegedly. I can't imagine myself ever having thrown threats around a forum. I may be somewhat confrontational in heated debate - heated debate is confrontation, after all - but I'm certainly not threatening. How can I prove a negative that doesn't exist as far as my memory is concerned? How would they know I had a past account anyway, even if I did? Presumably, you can't sign up for two usernames under the one e-mail address. :/ All very peculiar. If it wasn't for Predator, my absence over there would presumably have been passed off as an unwillingness to engage and respond, which certainly isn't the case at all. Further, I've yet to receive an e-mail to the e-mail account under which I signed up to OWC despite administrative claims over there that they've sent me one. Maybe they sent it the offending phantom account, which isn't really much use to me, seeing as it's not me. One thing I'm not is a troll. I've taken this debate very seriously since it first arose. Anyway...

Of course, Owen gets away with making unfounded accusations much worse than any recent remarks I made over in that little sycophantic cesspit. I'll deal with his points here as they're very relevant to the debate, but maybe you'd repost this back to him on OWC on my behalf? I doubt he could be enticed to visit the "Dark Side"... :rolleyes:

"Playing the 'tolerance' card" is an irrelevancy, and an ingenuously sentimental one at that. Let's not let over-sensitivity paralyse debate here, eh? Of what we're trying to get to the bottom here is how the existing FIFA statutes are to be interpreted under the relevant nationality laws. We must deal with the facts and words at hand; not how our personal positions might wish to twist them. Even the description Owen gives of the IFA's supposed tolerance shows it up to be a sham; “playing the 'tolerance' card”, it's a trick up their sleeve, mere show, like how a politician in the US might play the "race card" simply to whip up race consciousness and win electoral support. It betrays his subconscious convictions on tolerance, which maybe aren't as “mature” as he'd like to have others believe.

UK citizenship doesn't dictate that everyone born in Northern Ireland is a British national, so I'm not sure where that apparent underpinning originates. British nationality isn't foisted upon anyone against their will. The oh-so-tolerant Owen must surely grasp this. British nationality law makes specific provision for those born in Northern Ireland to be officially recognised as Irish nationals, as opposed to British nationals.

I assume he's referring to me when he patronisingly speaks of "this character", as if to dismiss the validity of my points... I can't really be taken serious seeing as I'm a cartoon, a charade and an act, just playing a game, don't you know? :rolleyes: The problem Owen has is that he doesn't appear to recognise the distinction between a descriptive analysis and a normative prescription. I've read Owen's blog and I respect the argument he's attempting to make. I'm not so “intolerant” that I'm blind to it... In fact, it's the most eloquent and convincing one I've encountered that argues the point in favour of the IFA. It actually deals head on with the facts at hand and is quite shrewd. However, I also feel he's allowing a little sentiment and emotivism to cloud his judgment.

There is no active and positive "will to politicise or segregate football" on this island at play here. It makes sense that those from Northern Ireland who wish to represent Ireland would be from a particular political or religious background; that generally being nationalist or Catholic. Any gump would understand that. You don't need a degree in the sociology of Northern Irish life to understand that. A basic understanding of Northern Irish history would recognise this to be the case, rather than the reality being the FAI trying to create footballing apartheid in Ireland. :/ To the contrary, the FAI are merely permitting the wishes of Irish nationals born in Northern Ireland to be realised and reach fruition. The FAI had no objection to fielding Alan Kernaghan, an Ulster Protestant, for example. There is no policy of apartheid. What nonsensical melodrama. And to accuse the Irish government of irredentism... What era is he living in? Irish nationality law concerning Northern Ireland was bi-laterally agreed with the UK taking into account the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland.

Anyway, the crux of Owen's argument is this: “The GFA's very essence is that people should be equally entitled to play a full role IN NORTHERN IRELAND”.

Irish nationality is a birthright of those born in Northern Ireland but it doesn't enable anyone who possesses it to play for Northern Ireland. This is an indisputable fact. Players born in Northern Ireland can represent Northern Ireland with an Irish passport as per IFA regulations but FIFA regulations dictate that their eligibility still must be proven beyond this. A passport is proof of identity and not strictly nationality; especially not in this instance. I'm not saying that those playing for Northern Ireland under an Irish passport must acknowledge Britishness, but that is the causal effect of representing one of the four constituents of the UK. For Owen's argument to work, Irish nationality alone would need to permit the holder to play for more than one association.

If Owen wants to talk about what amounts to intolerance, I can do that all day. For one, it's telling a northern-born Irishman that he can't represent his country. But that doesn't really get us anywhere.

Predator

13/03/2010, 5:32 PM

I posted your most recent post on OWC there Danny and provided a link to this thread so that anyone interested in the debate could partake. Imagine my surprise when the post miraculously disappeared. Unbelievable.

co. down green

13/03/2010, 6:16 PM

Gather round

13/03/2010, 6:40 PM

To say that "all countries are human constructs, many show absurdities"...downplays the contemporary historical nature of the Northern Irish statelet and what exactly partition sought to achieve

I don't think it does. It's just a statement of the obvious. Northern Ireland is politically volatile largely because it's a disputed border region, like many elsewhere. Abuses in its political system, which I acknowledge, are similarly reflected elsewhere. So neither uniquely bad nor clearly worse in scale as you seem to be suggesting.

Partition basically sought to achieve a compromise end to the nationalist war of independence and unionist refual to accept home rule. It resulted in close to 90% of the population of Ireland remaining on their preferred side of the border. A much higher figure than either of the likely alternatives would have achieved. So utilitarian, as I said.

As if institutional sectarianism was just another little quirk in the history of Western democracy...as if they're all on a similar pedestal with the more unique, or bizarre, political climate of Northern Ireland

Er, in the great scheme that's pretty much what it was. Do you really think that majority discrimination as in Northern Ireland didn't exist anywhere else? That would be really bizarre. Abuses were bad enough in their own right without you needing to pretend they were on a par with the Holocaust or the Cultural Revolution, or whatever. Get a grip.

Even the whole procedure itself along with the later maintenance of Northern Ireland bore no resemblance to how Britain's other imperial acquisitions were granted their independence nor did it follow the pattern of universally-accepted decolonisation implemented by other members of the "first world"

Really? I wonder why that was. Might it just be that the model for granting independence to India or colonies in Africa or the far East- thousands of miles away and where the colonists were a tiny fraction of the population- wasn't likely to work in what became Northern Ireland, with its large and localised unionist bloc visible just across the channel? Anyway, it wasn't a colony in the 1920s. Maybe in the 1620s.

Are you on there? I assume you are? Do you consider what I wrote offensive or abusive in any way from a Northern Ireland fan's perspective

I am, Floreat Ultonia at your service (but call me Florrie). As I said, I sympathise with your ban- I saw nothing abusive. On the other hand, being kicked off a discussion board 's hardly the worst humans rights abuse. Get over it, or just re-register. Ardee Bhoy can advise, his (genuinely) unique blend of semi-coherent sectarian nonsense gets banned from OWC and elsewhere regularly.

a united Ireland would be more equitable because Unionist are a smaller percentage of the total population of Ireland than Nationalists are of the North's

Nice try, it's a good slogan. If largely meaningless because

a) nationalists aren't anywhere near a majority in Northern Ireland- there's only one real issue, a repeated border poll which they keep losing

b) any notional united Ireland would simply replace a smaller disaffected nationalist minority with a larger equally disaffected unionist one. Which would be neither equitable, nor likely acceptable to many voters, commentators and politicians in the South.

seanfhear

13/03/2010, 6:53 PM

Since the Good Friday Agreement I believe that it is unfair to force anyone that does not want to play for the Orangemen controlled IFA.

There are many Orangemen at the helm of the IFA and I do not believe that people from such an organisation should be in such positions if they are genuine about attracting players from all sections of the populace in NI.

There are lots of reasons why people not from an Orange Order backround would not want to play for the IFA.

I would suggest that the IFA put their own house in order before searching for other scapegoats to explain why players do not want to play for them.

geysir

13/03/2010, 7:12 PM

UK citizenship doesn't dictate that everyone born in Northern Ireland is a British national, so I'm not sure where that apparent underpinning originates. British nationality isn't foisted upon anyone against their will. The oh-so-tolerant Owen must surely grasp this. British nationality law makes specific provision for those born in Northern Ireland to be officially recognised as Irish nationals, as opposed to British nationals.

You are missing a point here.
British Nationality Law only defines British Nationality and that part of it which is relevant to NI is British nationality by birthright within the UK. There is no mention about dual citizenry for Nordie folk. The Brit nationality law was not affected by the GFA. By birth a Nordie is a UK citizen. This is still an indisputable fact.
The GFA (accepted democratically in NI, not foisted upon NI nor imposed as a result of an act of irredentism by the Republic) changed that to two nationalities, a dual nationality but leaving it wide open to which nationality you want to be identified by.
The GFA only called for a constitutional change to the Irish constitution. It was enough for it to be accepted by a referendum in the North for it to be legal tender there.

third policeman

13/03/2010, 7:25 PM

Nice try, it's a good slogan. If largely meaningless because

a) nationalists aren't anywhere near a majority in Northern Ireland- there's only one real issue, a repeated border poll which they keep losing

b) any notional united Ireland would simply replace a smaller disaffected nationalist minority with a larger equally disaffected unionist one. Which would be neither equitable, nor likely acceptable to many voters, commentators and politicians in the South.

Suggest you re-read my post. this was not an argument (or even a slogan) it was a piece of alternative "spin" and therefore obviously ironic.

DannyInvincible

13/03/2010, 7:46 PM

You are missing a point here.
British Nationality Law only defines British Nationality and that part of it which is relevant to NI is British nationality by birthright within the UK. There is no mention about dual citizenry for Nordie folk. The Brit nationality law was not affected by the GFA. By birth a Nordie is a UK citizen. This is still an indisputable fact.
The GFA (accepted democratically in NI, not foisted upon NI nor imposed as a result of an act of irredentism by the Republic) changed that to two nationalities, a dual nationality but leaving it wide open to which nationality you want to be identified by.
The GFA only called for a constitutional change to the Irish constitution. It was enough for it to be accepted by a referendum in the North for it to be legal tender there.

Can British nationality not be renounced then? It was my understanding the the GFA enabled northern-borns to assume just Irish citizenship, but maybe I'm mistaken. :/

DannyInvincible

13/03/2010, 7:59 PM

I think I get what you're saying now, geysir. At last. :P Hopefully...

Is the following correct?

British nationality is the default position from birth. Irish nationality can be assumed also if the wish is there, but it is not automatic. If someone assumes Irish nationality, they are then dual citizens of the UK and Ireland. British citizenship cannot be renounced, so these individuals technically still remain a British citizen as far as officialdom is concerned but have the right not to identify themselves as such and, instead, be recognised as Irish.

I've had a look at this and I think that seems to be the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_ireland#Citizenship_and_identity

As regards the eligibility debate, it shoots any hope of the IFA's case being taken seriously out of the water.

geysir

13/03/2010, 8:15 PM

Eh not quite but you are getting there :)
Nordies have British Citizenship by birth in the UK.
Irish citizenship for Nordies is an automatic birthright entitlement since the GFA.
It is that birthright entitlement that makes it a Dual citizenship by any known criteria.

What you refer to as a wish, is in fact just the freedom to choose which they want to be identified as.
The dual nationality exists before the wish and still exists after the wish is made.
Even if a Nordie only exercises his right to be identified as a Brit, he is still a dual citizen by virtue of the constitutional acceptance of the GFA by the people of NI.

Afaiaa (but not certain), British citizenship can be renounced.

DannyInvincible

13/03/2010, 9:35 PM

Let me try again. :confused:

Are you saying then that the default nationality upon birth is a dual nationality? That anyone born in Northern Ireland is officially deemed British and Irish upon birth, and can later decide by which to be identified despite still officially possessing both?

Edit: Or, possessing the right to exercise both, even.

DannyInvincible

14/03/2010, 3:47 AM

None of the following has anything to do with football and I've been mulling over whether or not to post it, but then, this thread has been riddled with political debate from its very outset. Either way, you can skip over it if you wish just as easily as I can submit it in order to respond to a previous post from 'Gather round', so all's fair... :)

I don't think it does. It's just a statement of the obvious. Northern Ireland is politically volatile largely because it's a disputed border region, like many elsewhere. Abuses in its political system, which I acknowledge, are similarly reflected elsewhere. So neither uniquely bad nor clearly worse in scale as you seem to be suggesting.

Well, sure, but the Western world - the "cradle of democracy" - is, by and large, a stable "entity" with the exception of a few anomalies where a description as "civilised" might even demand explanation, one of which is Northern Ireland, a constituent part of a supposed beacon of liberal parliamentary democracy (albeit with a now-largely-honourary monarchic twist). I'm not trying to position the absurdity of Northern Ireland on any relative scale of severity compared to other conflicts and border disputes throughout Europe, nor would I be so insulting and ignorant to suggest it equates to historical travesties such as the Holocaust. What I don't think you can do, however, is casually dismiss it as if the particular absurdity that has been Northern Ireland was a direct and natural consequence (or quirk) of some genuine attempt to implement liberal democracy in line with the establishment of most other modern European states.

Partition basically sought to achieve a compromise end to the nationalist war of independence and unionist refual to accept home rule. It resulted in close to 90% of the population of Ireland remaining on their preferred side of the border. A much higher figure than either of the likely alternatives would have achieved. So utilitarian, as I said.

A compromise on the oppressor's terms, of course. :)

They may have found themselves on a "preferred side of the border", but it doesn't mean they all agreed or were happy with the imposition of such a border, nor did their preference for being on one side of it, as opposed to being on the other – because it was the best of two bad options - somehow validate it.

Really? I wonder why that was. Might it just be that the model for granting independence to India or colonies in Africa or the far East- thousands of miles away and where the colonists were a tiny fraction of the population- wasn't likely to work in what became Northern Ireland, with its large and localised unionist bloc visible just across the channel? Anyway, it wasn't a colony in the 1920s. Maybe in the 1620s.

As far as the morality of it is concerned, why would Ireland's geographical proximity to Britain matter at all? The island could be in the middle of the Pacific or on Britain's doorstep. Distance from the "heart of the empire" is irrelevant when making a moral judgment on the legitimacy of Britain's imperial conquests and the maintenance of such ties. Algeria was as close to France as much of peripheral Europe with a significant settler population. It was granted a plebiscite as a whole, which made sense as this was the only Algerian entity recognisable and accepted as a traditional unit. Zimbabwe had a planted settler population who fiercely objected to independence, but still, independence was granted. Possibly, the reason full independence wasn't granted to Ireland was simply logistical convenience due to the fact that geographical proximity made it easier to maintain the "Union" through greater physical force (or threat thereof) and entrench the myth that Ireland was more than just the equivalent of a colony.

“Colony”, “imperial acquisition”, “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, whatever... A label isn't going to erase experience, memory and consciousness.

On the other hand, being kicked off a discussion board 's hardly the worst humans rights abuse. Get over it, or just re-register.

Indeed, but it doesn't mean I ought to not find it a bit annoying and frustrating when I'm trying to engage in a discussion completely seriously only to met with accusations of trolling. Further, it's depressing to see such an apparent fear of dialogue and thirst to suppress it exist in this day and age, even if it is Northern Ireland! It's indicative of a mindset that exercises what it believes to be tolerance with an iron fist. Plus, I'd only be breaking the rules "again" if I re-registered, wouldn't I? :)

Gather round

14/03/2010, 9:30 AM

Either way, you can skip over it if you wish just as easily as I can submit it in order to respond to a previous post from 'Gather round', so all's fair...

Reply by PM ;)

ArdeeBhoy

14/03/2010, 10:53 AM

It resulted in close to 90% of the population of Ireland remaining on their preferred side of the border. A much higher figure than either of the likely alternatives would have achieved. So utilitarian, as I said.
Only as it conveniently matches up to the dogma of unionism and being tied to Britain's pursestrings!
And what DI said on the subject.

Do you really think that majority discrimination as in Northern Ireland didn't exist anywhere else? That would be really bizarre. Abuses were bad enough in their own right without you needing to pretend they were on a par with the Holocaust or the Cultural Revolution, or whatever. Get a grip.
One might suggest your own grip on reality is pretty doubtful if we forget about various events in Irish history which have brought us to where we are today. Or perhaps you might like to read up more on the subject??

Might it just be that the model for granting independence to India or colonies in Africa or the far East- thousands of miles away and where the colonists were a tiny fraction of the population- wasn't likely to work in what became Northern Ireland, with its large and localised unionist bloc visible just across the channel? Anyway, it wasn't a colony in the 1920s. Maybe in the 1620s.
Er, it's a colony Now!
And again refer you to DI's answer.

Ardee Bhoy can advise, his (genuinely) unique blend of semi-coherent sectarian nonsense.
If you say so. As opposed to a brand of tedious hypocrisy and pomposity, with no interest in any change to the 'status quo'.

a) nationalists aren't anywhere near a majority in Northern Ireland- there's only one real issue, a repeated border poll which they keep losing

b) any notional united Ireland would simply replace a smaller disaffected nationalist minority with a larger equally disaffected unionist one. Which would be neither equitable, nor likely acceptable to many voters, commentators and politicians in the South.
Except they're a minority in their own country thanks to the gerrymandering machinations of the the British state. And if the concept of a united Ireland fills them with such dread, I'm sure that very same state would welcome them with open arms. ;)