Eligibility Rules, Okay

[DannyInvincible]

I heard AB was planning on attending anyway. Just to make sure she's definitely dead. :p

[BonnieShels]

I heard AB was planning on attending anyway. Just to make sure she's definitely dead. :p

Just like the way they smash the Pope's head in when he dies to make sure.

[geysir]

The Icelandic way was to use a sledgehammer to smash the head in of a hated fallen enemy.
Sometimes the sledge just bounced off the skull.

[Bottle of Tonic]

Have you considered rejoining the motherland?

Gather Round, obviously this is completely hypothetical as the ship has long since sailed, but what do you think modern day Unionists would make of Grattan's proposal being operational in the present day? i.e. A completely independent Ireland, in equal partnership with Britain, yet united only under the one Crown.

This was obviously a proposal coming from the Protestant ascendancy of Ireland in the late 18th century, before the 'Union' of 1801. Fascinating to read up on politics of the time where the links between Catholic-Republican and Protestant-Royalist as we assume them today were all a bit muddled.

[ArdeeBhoy]

I propose Ardee Bhoy and Gather Round, jointly.


I heard AB was planning on attending anyway. Just to make sure she's definitely dead. :p

Flattered that I am, always detested that vile woman, unlike GR who claimed to be a 'big' fan when we first met.
:rolleyes:
His views have clearly blurred in the intervening period, but for him it would be all about the buffet anyway...

[Gather round]

That is a vile calumny, Bhoy. Although I will admit to getting a slap from a school chum in May 1979, after suggesting that maybe a Tory government wouldn't be so bad. I wised up soon enough.


North men, South men Poachers all!
Dunwich, Belper, Colne and Dunstable!

I like it. Is there a download, and are you gigging?


Now I ask ya... what would this new proto-nationalism be called which clearly could be a cause to be espoused? Neo-nationalism?

Depends whether the South plays ball and welcomes the new territories. If not, if it would have to be a West of the Banntustan.


I'm not so convinced. Whilst he may view Irish nationalism to be hypocritical, he does also believe that unionists ought possess a veto over the provision in the GFA that allows for a border plebiscite or over any result from said plebiscite that wouldn't work in unionism's favour. I think that's duplicitous and dangerously deceptive

Are you for real? I;ve said repeatedly above that Unionism should consider transferring Nationalist-majority areas of its territory to the Republic, ie offering more in one internet thread than most Irish Nationalist hacks have managed between them in 90 years.

At risk of repeating myself, a big problem here is that you fail to grasp what the GFA is. Not something that's set in stone for evermore, but a compromise deal that may be replaced when it no longer suits all the parties. Or, if you prefer, a contract which can end when one or both parties give the required notice.


If the current thinking amongst most unionists is that they will reject any democratic vote of the north's electorate in favour of a united Ireland despite having willingly signed up to such a procedure, and a shifting of the goalposts was to be forced by unionist malcontents throwing their toys out of the pram in such an eventuality, it means that the nationalist/republican community are essentially being hoodwinked/strung along at present

That current thinking is that there's no chance of a united Ireland in the foreseeable future because a) Nationalists show little sign of getting the necessary 55% electoral support for it, and b) even the lesser figure of SF/SDLP support is unlikely to be totally commited to unity, if recent opinion surveys are to be believed.

I'm merely trying to push the argument along and anticipate what might happen in say 10 or 20 years time.


Either unionists support and adhere to the terms of the GFA or they don't. If they have no intention of respecting them, some honesty would be appreciated

They're respecting them now, because overall they feel the pros outweigh the cons. Broadly, there's less violence and Nationalists' tick-tock argument looks a bit silly at the moment.

They might give notice to withdraw from them in future, as I suggest. Hardly dishonest, at least not in comparison with an Irish Nationalist establishment that's fibbed about its real aims since Noah was a nipper.


The border and population/electorate within the new territory of NI was determined to unionist satisfaction at the expense of the wishes of a significant nationalist minority in the early 1920s. In effect, a democratic majority was manufactured for the benefit of unionism. It's seriously bad form to now talk of hypothetically rejecting a motion passed by an electorate of a territory their own brethren determined and sustained up until now, purportedly without issue

It isn't bad form just because it upsets you. You must realise how the political system works in this country: basically, Parliament can't bind its successors. Unionists in 2023 or 2033 aren't obliged to accept with what Grandad agreed in 1998.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except most Unionist and many Nationalist politicians show no interest in redrawing the border...
And the polarised voting patterns suggest the electors in the North aren't overly interested either.

[DannyInvincible]

Are you for real? I;ve said repeatedly above that Unionism should consider transferring Nationalist-majority areas of its territory to the Republic, ie offering more in one internet thread than most Irish Nationalist hacks have managed between them in 90 years.

Fair enough, but without such a transfer ever occurring, you wouldn't accept the democratic mandate of the north's electorate if it were to vote for unity? Why should republicans bother engaging with constitutional politics and the democratic process if unionists aren't ultimately prepared to do so either?


At risk of repeating myself, a big problem here is that you fail to grasp what the GFA is. Not something that's set in stone for evermore, but a compromise deal that may be replaced when it no longer suits all the parties. Or, if you prefer, a contract which can end when one or both parties give the required notice.

Not really much of a deal/contract, that. A deception to temporarily placate, if anything.


They might give notice to withdraw from them in future, as I suggest. Hardly dishonest, at least not in comparison with an Irish Nationalist establishment that's fibbed about its real aims since Noah was a nipper.

Can unionists feel betrayed though? Such fibbing and deceiving by the nationalist establishment of their own has only served to sustain partition surely.


It isn't bad form just because it upsets you. You must realise how the political system works in this country: basically, Parliament can't bind its successors. Unionists in 2023 or 2033 aren't obliged to accept with what Grandad agreed in 1998.

Indeed, but, as I said, modern-day unionists broadly wish to sustain the terms and conditions of partition. It would be a little rich to suddenly reject the framework they and their forebears have fostered for decades at the expense of the interests of the nationalist minority just because it might no longer suit them. It would be having their cake and eating it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Very good last post, Danny.


That is a vile calumny, Bhoy. Although I will admit to getting a slap from a school chum in May 1979, after suggesting that maybe a Tory government wouldn't be so bad. I wised up soon enough.

Hmm, except it's no slander. You were a fan when we first met...
Or a very good liar.
;)

[Gather round]

Sinn Féin started their campaign recently: http://unitingireland.ie/. The SDLP may well have plans to do the same. Are you expecting me to launch a personal Foot.ie campaign too?

I doubt you could be any more lacklustre than Gerry, Alasdair and co. But you misunderstand: I was hoping for some evidence that the Nationalist parties are actually, belatedly trying to convince Unionists, not just a glossy PR leaflet.


To simply say I hypothetically supported a re-drawing of the border might give the impression I would support it unconditionally, and that would be a misrepresentation

Hardly. The whole basis for any change to the border is that all parties would have to compromise. Pretty much the opposite of unconditional, enthusiastic support.


How does [British Government indifference] make you feel as a compatriot?

Disappointed, of course. It became starkly obvious quite recently, when Naomi Long MP was describing a Unionist mob picketing her house and trying to attack her office. She suggested that nowhere in England would that have been tolerated for weeks on end.


As stated above, [Strabane or Newry joining the Republic] might compromise the long-term nationalist/republican strategy and aspiration for a solitary all-island state. Them's politics...

I can't really see how. Such a change presumably benefits Nationalists in Strabane and Newry; it doesn't leave those in Carrickfergus or Bangor any further away in practice from a united Ireland than they were previously, or lessen the ability of Irish Nationalist parties to lobby on their behalf.


without such a transfer ever occurring, you wouldn't accept the democratic mandate of the north's electorate if it were to vote for unity?

In principle, I've never personally ruled out accepting a united Ireland in future if the Unionist-majority area becomes too small to self-sustain. If, say, it became like the Pieds-Noirs in Algeria who were largely confined to one city at the end. But we're a long way down a 'what if yer granny had testicles' blind alley there.

In the more realistic meantime, I'm arguing for a workable compromise before things get that stark.


Why should republicans bother engaging with constitutional politics and the democratic process if unionists aren't ultimately prepared to do so either?

Everyone should respect both the above and the rule of law. What I'm suggesting doesn't contradict any of them.


Not really much of a deal/contract, that. A deception to temporarily placate, if anything

There's no deception. Contracts are often short-term. In international politics as in every other area of law.


Can unionists feel betrayed though? Such fibbing and deceiving by the nationalist establishment of their own has only served to sustain partition surely

I haven't mentioned any betrayal. Unionists did a deal 15 years ago; they may wish to do another in 15 years time. Aye, the circumstances and extent of partition might well be different if the Free State ad Republic had ever challenged it.


modern-day unionists broadly wish to sustain the terms and conditions of partition. It would be a little rich to suddenly reject the framework they and their forebears have fostered for decades at the expense of the interests of the nationalist minority just because it might no longer suit them. It would be having their cake and eating it

I'm suggesting that in future I expect more Unionist readiness to redraw the border. That is, a change to those terms and conditions. Some Nationalists would benefit, others would be no worse off than they are now. It would be a reasoned reaction to changing circumstances. Of course I accept that the 'Never Never' crowd joining in to support such a change would be seen as hypocritical; but I've er, never been one of them ;)


Gather Round, obviously this is completely hypothetical as the ship has long since sailed, but what do you think modern day Unionists would make of Grattan's proposal being operational in the present day? i.e. A completely independent Ireland, in equal partnership with Britain, yet united only under the one Crown

I agree it's interesting- and topical, because basically it's what the SNP are arguing for Scotland ;)

[ArdeeBhoy]

All admirable enough in itself but hardly likely...
Or palatable to most Unionists & their electorate.

Not sure why you're flogging this future lasagne...

[BonnieShels]

All admirable enough in itself but hardly likely...
Or palatable to most Unionists & their electorate.

Not sure why you're flogging this future lasagne...

Let's go with it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Yeah, but we're not, erm, unionist politicians
:eek:

[ArdeeBhoy]

No mention of redrawing the border here...from former alumni of GR/NB!!
:eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg2m

[DannyInvincible]

Disappointed, of course. It became starkly obvious quite recently, when Naomi Long MP was describing a Unionist mob picketing her house and trying to attack her office. She suggested that nowhere in England would that have been tolerated for weeks on end.

You wouldn't feel a stronger sense of connection with your Irish brethren then as a result? Or do you just feel estranged/alienated and seek to remain so?


I can't really see how. Such a change presumably benefits Nationalists in Strabane and Newry; it doesn't leave those in Carrickfergus or Bangor any further away in practice from a united Ireland than they were previously, or lessen the ability of Irish Nationalist parties to lobby on their behalf.

Lobbying from across the southern side of the border can't and won't realise a united Ireland. As laid down in the GFA, such can only be realised via a democratic decision taken by at least 51 per cent of the north's electorate. Although maybe we can change that and let the whole island decide after all? For what is the GFA but mere words on easily-shred paper?...

Under these hypothetical circumstances, by way of repartition, the unionist majority would see a substantial bolstering of its ratio relative to the vestigial nationalist minority, thereby more-or-less ruling out any potential occurrence of an overall nationalist majority within the refined shrunken statelet. Repartition would make any new border more democratically secure, if anything. Not that a nationalist majority in the north would necessarily equate to a vote for unity at present, but the larger the nationalist majority is, surely the greater the chance is of a united Ireland being realised?


Everyone should respect both the above and the rule of law. What I'm suggesting doesn't contradict any of them.

Rejecting a democratic vote would be to respect the democratic process? I don't see how...


There's no deception. Contracts are often short-term. In international politics as in every other area of law.

Contracts establish expectations, but, more importantly, also obligations. You don't appear to think unionists should have to oblige, however. Why should republicans?

[Gather round]

You wouldn't feel a stronger sense of connection with your Irish brethren then as a result? Or do you just feel estranged/alienated and seek to remain so?

Neither. The two have little or nothing to do with each other. A succession of British govts marginalising its own citizens doesn't tend to make me disposed to a foreign state that's treated them with a mix of cynicism, hypocrisy and incoherence for nearly a century.

And why would I want to be alienated? Although I see it may be your default position, when the response to the Irish Republic possibly getting more territory is to reject it as Unionist bigotry ;)


Lobbying from across the southern side of the border can't and won't realise a united Ireland. As laid down in the GFA, such can only be realised via a democratic decision taken by at least 51 per cent of the north's electorate. Although maybe we can change that and let the whole island decide after all? For what is the GFA but mere words on easily-shred paper?...

Very droll.The pretend lobbying will continue as it always has. Incidentally, 51% wouldn't be enough, surely (particularly if you're equating it to the slogan of 50% + 1). The majority would have to be large enough to be secure against reversal in the next election, to avoid all the embarrassment/ instability etc. that would follow. So closer to 55%. It's asking a lot to imagine all these extra or swing voters when after 90 years the campaign to recruit them hasn't even started yet...


Under these hypothetical circumstances, by way of repartition, the unionist majority would see a substantial bolstering of its ratio relative to the vestigial nationalist minority, thereby more-or-less ruling out any potential occurrence of an overall nationalist majority within the refined shrunken statelet. Repartition would make any new border more democratically secure, if anything. Not that a nationalist majority in the north would necessarily equate to a vote for unity at present, but the larger the nationalist majority is, surely the greater the chance is of a united Ireland being realised?

A smaller NI would obviously reduce the likelihood of it voting for a united Ireland. It wouldn't reduce it to zero any more than the Free State/ Republic's past antics have. Repartition would be more democratically secure and legitimate, as you say. That's the whole point: I think that, based on the principle of self-determination, is better than some daydream.


Rejecting a democratic vote would be to respect the democratic process? I don't see how...

Who's doing that? Not I. A few posts back I specifically mentioned the possibility of the Unionist rump in Ireland becoming too small to self-sustain, in which case I'd have to accept a united Ireland. I would adapt to a significantly changed circumstance. You seem unable to, basically because as I mentioned your first principle is not self-determination but a united Ireland. You haven't moved on since learning it by rote at Ballygobackwards Integrated Primary ;)

So, you put up a straw man argument including all the predictable fact and opinion, bulked out by proven baloney and sheer bat-**** craziness


Contracts establish expectations, but, more importantly, also obligations

Couldn't agree more. Do you not think that both sides have pretty much fulfilled those in the last 15 years?


You don't appear to think unionists should have to oblige, however. Why should republicans?

See what I mean? Those nasty Unionists! They just won't accept it isn't 1998/ 1925/ 1169 any more and want a more up-to-date workable agreement!

PS shall we take this to a PM? ;)

[BonnieShels]

Neither. The two have little or nothing to do with each other. A succession of British govts marginalising its own citizens doesn't tend to make me disposed to a foreign state that's treated them with a mix of cynicism, hypocrisy and incoherence for nearly a century.

And why would I want to be alienated? Although I see it may be your default position, when the response to the Irish Republic possibly getting more territory is to reject it as Unionist bigotry ;)



Very droll.The pretend lobbying will continue as it always has. Incidentally, 51% wouldn't be enough, surely (particularly if you're equating it to the slogan of 50% + 1). The majority would have to be large enough to be secure against reversal in the next election, to avoid all the embarrassment/ instability etc. that would follow. So closer to 55%. It's asking a lot to imagine all these extra or swing voters when after 90 years the campaign to recruit them hasn't even started yet...



A smaller NI would obviously reduce the likelihood of it voting for a united Ireland. It wouldn't reduce it to zero any more than the Free State/ Republic's past antics have. Repartition would be more democratically secure and legitimate, as you say. That's the whole point: I think that, based on the principle of self-determination, is better than some daydream.



Who's doing that? Not I. A few posts back I specifically mentioned the possibility of the Unionist rump in Ireland becoming too small to self-sustain, in which case I'd have to accept a united Ireland. I would adapt to a significantly changed circumstance. You seem unable to, basically because as I mentioned your first principle is not self-determination but a united Ireland. You haven't moved on since learning it by rote at Ballygobackwards Integrated Primary ;)

So, you put up a straw man argument including all the predictable fact and opinion, bulked out by proven baloney and sheer bat-**** craziness



Couldn't agree more. Do you not think that both sides have pretty much fulfilled those in the last 15 years?



See what I mean? Those nasty Unionists! They just won't accept it isn't 1998/ 1925/ 1169 any more and want a more up-to-date workable agreement!

PS shall we take this to a PM? ;)

Here we go...

http://foot.ie/threads/178393-Discussion-on-a-United-or-re-partitioned-Ireland?p=1677819#post1677819

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except we can't all read that...

More relevant would be not to believe all of what GR says, as some of it is totally at odds with his usual spiel!!

[geysir]

Except we can't all read that...

Current Affairs is a cold house for Ardeee Bhoy.

[BonnieShels]

I know. But I think at this stage AB needs to appeal the sanction.

[ArdeeBhoy]

There's more chance of unionists redrawing the border than that being lifted...

[BonnieShels]

There's more chance of unionists redrawing the border than that being lifted...

I think B*** W******** are probably suffering a lot of the ire at present. You should be grand. :)

What did you do anyway?

[peadar1987]

I think B*** W******** are probably suffering a lot of the ire at present. You should be grand. :)

What did you do anyway?

Well a few people were saying things he didn't like, so he got his high-powered team of lawyers to start threatening the site. Shameful!

[BonnieShels]

Well a few people were saying things he didn't like, so he got his high-powered team of lawyers to start threatening the site. Shameful!

I don't think you can comment on that.

[ArdeeBhoy]

You should be grand. :)

What did you do anyway?
See my previous post.
And who knows? You tell me.

And just checked out the other thread. Considerably duller/more pointless than this one!

[Stuttgart88]

I cant remember which thread had some yap about Gibraltar and others, so I'm sticking this up here.

There's a talk in Birkbeck Sport Business Centre in central London on Thursday 18th

http://www.sportbusinesscentre.com/events/steve-menary/

“Gibraltar and the road to Wembley”

A seminar as part of the Sport Business Centre Seminar Series

Synopsis

As the Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) prepare for their long-running application to join the international game to go to a vote at the UEFA Congress in London on May 24 2013, author and journalist Steve Menary provides an update on the fortunes of the British colony and the other teams that featured in his critically well-received book Outcasts: The Lands That FIFA Forgot.

He looks at what has happened to those teams that he spent two years chronicling in the original edition of Outcasts, which was shortlisted for the 2008 football book of the year award. Why could Gibraltar finally be on the break-through? Why is Greenland the epitome of the footballing Outcast? Why are Kosovo barred from even playing international friendlies despite recognition from well over half of FIFA’s 209 members?

Outcasts, which has just come out as a new edition on Kindle, is a story of how footballing nationality, or the need to establish a national identity through sport, continues be used and distorted for political means, and how the footballing authorities keep some ‘countries’ kicking their heels on the side-lines.

B35 Lecture Theatre
Main Building
Birkbeck College, University of London
Torrington Square
London WC1E 7HX

Thursday 18th April 2013 at 6pm


This event will operate under “Chatham House Rules” – no external reporting without the permission of the speakers

[BonnieShels]

I cant remember which thread had some yap about Gibraltar and others, so I'm sticking this up here.

There's a talk in Birkbeck Sport Business Centre in central London on Thursday 18th

http://www.sportbusinesscentre.com/events/steve-menary/

“Gibraltar and the road to Wembley”

A seminar as part of the Sport Business Centre Seminar Series

Synopsis

As the Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) prepare for their long-running application to join the international game to go to a vote at the UEFA Congress in London on May 24 2013, author and journalist Steve Menary provides an update on the fortunes of the British colony and the other teams that featured in his critically well-received book Outcasts: The Lands That FIFA Forgot.

He looks at what has happened to those teams that he spent two years chronicling in the original edition of Outcasts, which was shortlisted for the 2008 football book of the year award. Why could Gibraltar finally be on the break-through? Why is Greenland the epitome of the footballing Outcast? Why are Kosovo barred from even playing international friendlies despite recognition from well over half of FIFA’s 209 members?

Outcasts, which has just come out as a new edition on Kindle, is a story of how footballing nationality, or the need to establish a national identity through sport, continues be used and distorted for political means, and how the footballing authorities keep some ‘countries’ kicking their heels on the side-lines.

B35 Lecture Theatre
Main Building
Birkbeck College, University of London
Torrington Square
London WC1E 7HX

Thursday 18th April 2013 at 6pm


This event will operate under “Chatham House Rules” – no external reporting without the permission of the speakers

Twas in here!

http://foot.ie/threads/157892-FIFA-and-Non-Sovereign-States?p=1678682&viewfull=1#post1678682

[SkStu]

Might as well chuck this tidbit in here... Mani is a Republic of Ireland fan!


Mounfield is an enthusiastic supporter of Manchester United Football Club. He regularly showcases his love for the team on the Sky One programme, Football Years, giving his views on football seasons of the past.[citation needed] He also revealed on Play UK programme Nu Music that he supports Celtic F.C. in Scotland and, although he is English, he was brought up to support the Republic of Ireland national football team. He has also appeared on the football programme Soccer AM, earning himself a "Hat-trick Ball" from the show as a result.[citation needed] He also supports Warrington Wolves, influenced by Ian Brown who comes from Warrington.

[DannyInvincible]

Does Mounfield have Irish roots, or maybe it was the appeal of our ball-wizardry?

[BonnieShels]

Does Mounfield have Irish roots, or maybe it was the appeal of our ball-wizardry?

As a musician from Manchester? Definitely maybe I would guess!

From 2006:
http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishpost/ents/StoneAgePrimalRocker.asp

From 2004:
http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threads/39401-Johnny-Marr-and-Mani-(Stone-Roses)-interesting-story

From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_migration_to_Great_Britain

[gastric]

Rory may have his dilemma sorted out for him.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/mcilroy-may-have-to-play-for-ireland-1.1370837

[Gather round]

Rory may have his dilemma sorted out for him.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/mcilroy-may-have-to-play-for-ireland-1.1370837

No such rule exists, says International Olympic Committee. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/22283388)

[Not Brazil]

No such rule exists, says International Olympic Committee. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/22283388)

The Olympic Charter states: "A competitor who has represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships... and who has changed his nationality or acquired a new nationality, may participate in the Olympic Games to represent his new country provided that at least three years have passed since the competitor last represented his former country."

McIlroy has never changed his Nationality, or acquired a new Nationality.

[geysir]

I think there is a bit more to it than that. This is the rule which more applies to Rory's case.

Bye law to rule 42

4 Furthermore, in all cases in which a competitor would be eligible to participate in the Olympic Games, either by representing another country than his or by having the choice as to the country which such competitor intends to represent, the IOC Executive Boardmay take all decisions of a general or individual nature with regard to issues resulting from nationality, citizenship, domicile or residence of any competitor, including theduration of any waiting period

Rory has had no choice in intl golf tournaments. There is no GB+NI team in international golf. Rory can only represent the all-Ireland golf entity in international tournaments.
But when it comes to the olympics, he has a choice.
That choice only exists for the olympics, therefore Rory would not be bound to represent Ireland in olympic golf. It would be a formality for him to receive permission (if required) to represent GB+NI at the olympics.
If NI had an olympic team, then it would be a different matter. Rory would be bound to represent the team he had already represented (in the previous 3 years).

We might even arrive to a 'radical' situation, that Rory follows his heart and the rest of golf Ireland support his decision 100%.

[gastric]

It seems the necessary criteria are yet to be confirmed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/golf/boa-assessing-mcilroy-s-playing-history-to-determine-olympic-eligibility-1.1372960

[geysir]

That just means the BOA/Cole don't know yet, haven't read the rules, or are just not getting involved publicly in such an issue. The BOA can't really make up their own rules in such a case, opposed to the Olympic charter, can they?

edit, it probably means that the BOA haven't decided on their eligibility criteria for representation on the 2016 GB+NI team. Nevertheless, Rory, having previously representing Ireland in an intl tournament, is not excluded by virtue of that, from representing GB+NI at the olympics.
But I suppose the BOA can make up their own selection criteria as long as it doesn't contravene the charter.

Golf and tennis as an olympic sport, is a strange concept.

[Sleepingpartner]

The Olympic Charter states: "A competitor who has represented one country in the Olympic Games, in continental or regional games or in world or regional championships... and who has changed his nationality or acquired a new nationality, may participate in the Olympic Games to represent his new country provided that at least three years have passed since the competitor last represented his former country."

McIlroy has never changed his Nationality, or acquired a new Nationality.

He has always been British and ​Irish?

[BonnieShels]

Golf and tennis as an olympic sport, is a strange concept.

Yip. Cannot stand the idea of golf at the olympics. and that the pro circuit is from where the players will be picked is equally galling.

Whilst I know money talks it's sad that one of the few sports in the world that has a largely high quality amateur base can't stick with them as the selectees for the Olympics.

[ArdeeBhoy]

True enough. Same with tennis and other individual sports which just don't find as enjoyable.

Pal of mine said they might as well stick in F1 in if they're going to have golf. And before anyone moans reckon the average F1 driver would be fitter than the average golfer?

[DannyInvincible]

Golf and tennis as an olympic sport, is a strange concept.

In what sense exactly? Surely no "stranger" than, say, archery, or this lot: http://www.ivillage.co.uk/10-weird-and-wonderful-former-olympic-sports/132197#3


He has always been British and ​Irish?

Pretty sure that's how he personally identifies, as well as Northern Irish. Officially-speaking, he's an automatic British citizen from birth and would be considered an Irish citizen from birth if he performs an action that only an Irish citizen can perform, such as applying for an Irish passport.

[osarusan]

I'm of the opinion that if an olympic medal isn't the highest award a participant in a sport can try and win, then that sport shouldn't be an olympic sport.

[gastric]

Very interesting article on the origins of the tricolour, the same one that Danny feels he can destroy for art sake. Unbelievable! Worth a read.

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tracking-the-tricolour-1.1364749?page=3

[DannyInvincible]

Very interesting article on the origins of the tricolour, the same one that Danny feels he can destroy for art sake. Unbelievable!

I'm genuinely sorry you feel insulted - you're actually the first person who has expressed issue with it to me, and I know plenty with strong republican sympathies - but that's also to completely misinterpret and misrepresent the point of the work. (I should have listened to my mother!)

Who's really trampling on our flag? The purpose of the desecration most certainly wasn't to insult, offend or mock on some literal or one-dimensional level. It wasn't an act of attempted iconoclasm. Rather, it was a visual satire, if you will, the morality of which I thought very hard about. I'm well aware of the flag's protocol - seeing the likes of "Chelsea FC", "Arsenal" or whoever plastered across it in black lettering never sat easily with me - and I love/respect our flag and its purported symbolism. I'll proudly stand to its attention and sing Amhrán na bhFiann when it's right and fitting to do so, and it may even cause the eyes to water if the sentiment of the occasion is just right, but I thought what I did was a powerful way of making, not an anti-Irish statement, but a statement of anger attacking how I feel it, as a once-proud symbol of the Irish people and nation I love, has been treated by our supposed national leaders and those now pulling the strings from further afield as a result of the former's moral bankruptcy. The accompanying text should make that apparent. It's an allegory representing a degradation of national sovereignty and identity, or the shameful p*ssing all over the Irish people by people we have a right to expect treat us better, because their position of power and influence is reliant on our consent and trust, after all. They've breached our trust and, worse, are laughing at us from their perches. They might as well be burning our flag.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I welcome your feedback and I was aware that desecrating a flag can be a very contentious matter - indeed, it's a crime in some states - but I hope I've been able to clarify my intention and placate your concern/dispapproval, which I hope was based on a misunderstanding.

[gastric]

I'm genuinely sorry you feel insulted - you're actually the first person who has expressed issue with it to me, and I know plenty with strong republican sympathies - but that's also to completely misinterpret and misrepresent the point of the work. (I should have listened to my mother!)

Who's really trampling on our flag? The purpose of the desecration most certainly wasn't to insult, offend or mock on some literal or one-dimensional level. It wasn't an act of attempted iconoclasm. Rather, it was a visual satire, if you will, the morality of which I thought very hard about. I'm well aware of the flag's protocol - seeing the likes of "Chelsea FC", "Arsenal" or whoever plastered across it in black lettering never sat easily with me - and I love/respect our flag and its purported symbolism. I'll proudly stand to its attention and sing Amhrán na bhFiann when it's right and fitting to do so, and it may even cause the eyes to water if the sentiment of the occasion is just right, but I thought what I did was a powerful way of making, not an anti-Irish statement, but a statement of anger attacking how I feel it, as a once-proud symbol of the Irish people and nation I love, has been treated by our supposed national leaders and those now pulling the strings from further afield as a result of the former's moral bankruptcy. The accompanying text should make that apparent. It's an allegory representing a degradation of national sovereignty and identity, or the shameful p*ssing all over the Irish people by people we have a right to expect treat us better, because their position of power and influence is reliant on our consent and trust, after all. They've breached our trust and, worse, are laughing at us from their perches. They might as well be burning our flag.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I welcome your feedback and I was aware that desecrating a flag can be a very contentious matter indeed, it's a crime in some states - but I hope I've been able to clarify my intention and placate your concern/dispapproval, which I hope was based on a misunderstanding.

Danny, I was just joking! In fact I found your artwork interesting and thoughtful.

[SkStu]

Art is gay.

[DannyInvincible]

Art is gay.

Ha, and so what is to be said of art criticism then? :p

[geysir]

In what sense exactly? Surely no "stranger" than, say, archery, or this lot: http://www.ivillage.co.uk/10-weird-and-wonderful-former-olympic-sports/132197#3 Some might think you're taking the píss out of the merits of golf as an olympic sport, dragging up a comparison with the Long Jump for Horses event ...... or vice versa perhaps?

As an aside but still on track, I wonder what the eligibility rules were for those horses and did the winning horse take home the medal?

[The Fly]

I'm of the opinion that if an olympic medal isn't the highest award a participant in a sport can try and win, then that sport shouldn't be an olympic sport.

Seconded.

[BonnieShels]

I'm of the opinion that if an olympic medal isn't the highest award a participant in a sport can try and win, then that sport shouldn't be an olympic sport.

Thirded

[SkStu]

Ha, and so what is to be said of art criticism then? :p

Homophobia? :D