NI Passports

[Paddy Ramone]

It is an unfair advantage, as it is the only country that is given multiple teams. The UK has 4 representatives, and thereby 4 separate cracks at their country having a qualifiier at a major tournament. The success of those teams in pursuing those slots is only a secondary issue.

I don't see how it's an advantage. Again as I said before the larger the pool of players to choose from especially in a footballing country like Britain the greater the advantage on the field of play. Four seperate associations means more blazers but has no footballing advantage. How many Scots support England! How many Welsh! I know a Linfield fan from East Belfast who'd support the Republic of Ireland against England, he hates the English that much.:D


There have been World cups in the past were the UK has had 2 or 3 representative teams present (e.g. 3 teams in 1982 and 1986). How can that possibly be considered fair, when every other political state in the world is allowed only one representative ?!? Because of this ridiculous rule, 2 additional countries/states were effectively excluded from participating in those World Cups.

The "historical quirk of faith" as you call it is due to the fact that the Brits invented the organized sport of association football. None of the countries denied places in the places in the world cup would have association football teams if it wasn't for the Brits.


First and foremost - this is an issue about football and equity of treatment, not one of narow-minded politics. Your objections seem to owe more to petty nationalist sentiments than to questions of fairness in world football.

I am see myself as a liberal nationalist not a "petty nationalist" as you call it. I'm such a liberal nationalist I was called mealy mouthed by someone on this thread when I suggested Ireland after unification should join the Commonwealth. (An idea voiced before by Eamon O Kuiv (Caoimh) and Jim McDaid members of the Republican wing of Fianna Fail.)


Secondly - I am one Irish man who would like to see a British team, because it is grossly unfair to have it any other way.

I can't agree with you. Especially when the English are becoming more aware of their seperate identity from the Scots and the Welsh. Evidence of this is increasing number of English St Georges crosses instead of Union Jacks. I actually much rather see England win the World Cup than the UK. My father was the son of an Englishman like Patrick Pearse.:D

Anyway must people in England call themselves English not British and only ever used the term 'British' out of regard for the Scots. As an Irish Nationalist I believe the sooner "Scotshire" takes it's place among the independent nations of the world as Scotland the better.

[Paddy Ramone]

BTW I have no doubt that Scotland would leave the UK rather than have a joint national side with the shower on the other side of Hadrians Wall.

I agree with you. I think the British establishment would rather see the present situation with a crap Scottish national side.

I remember reading a Scottish national newspaper not popular with Celtic and Rangers fans called the Daily Record where there was an an article on the links with Scottish Nationalism and the success of the SNP. It seems whenever the Scottish football team is successful SNP support tends to increase and drops when they are unsuccessful. It was at it's peak in 1974 when Scotland were undefeated in the World Cup. As long as Scotland don't win the World Cup the Union is safe.

Would the Basque situation have been as bad if they had their own football team? There is an argument that international football is a substitute for warfare. Would the result of a UK team be a Scottish equivalent of ETA and IRA campaigns.:eek:

[Gather round]

I knew someone would mistakenly mention the Faroe Islands in this context...they are self-governing/independent in every way bar defence & Foreign Affairs, which Denmark administers on their behalf. They are likewise much more autonomous than the UK nations - and likewise have a football team to recognise that. They are therefore not a valid comparison with the UK representative sides

Heh. Yes, they're independent in everything bar foreign affairs- but the definition of foreign affairs is probably more elastic in Torshavn than Tobermory. Basically, given their size, isolation climate etc. the islands are hugely reliant on the outside World- Denmark, largely- for almost everything which needs to be imported.

They aren't a separate country and in practice aren't any more autonomous than Scotland, Wales or NI in many ways. Much of their autonomy is purely due to distance from anywhere else.

Andorra isn't a separate country. Its heads of state are the French president and a Spanish bishop acting as proxy for the King in Madrid. Liechtenstein and San Marino are in effect glorified poste restante offices. I very much doubt anyone there would claim everyday life was more autonomous than in the Creggan estate, but next time I'm in Vaduz I'll ask.


First and foremost - this is an issue about football and equity of treatment

Aye, right. Poor old Romania's and Sweden's human rights were terribly infringed by their failure to take part in the World Cups of 1986 and 1982. Alternatively, if the useless bsatards hadn't managed to lose three qualifiers to British teams, or scored nul points against Bingham's bluffers, then they'd have been there. The law ignores trivia, Steve.

[CollegeTillIDie]

That cannot be asserted as fact CTID. The UN's current plans appear to be for a self-governing Kosovo - not one absorbed into Albania. The Kosovans themselves may chose that route at some future point (though their large Serbian population will doubtless have something to say about that, and I suspect they'd be isolated within Europe if they chose to do so. I also suspect their formal successiosn talks would involve guarantees that they won't create a greater Albania), but you cannot say with any certainty that there won't be either an independent Kosovo, or therefore a Kosovan football team.

So the historical anachronism/absurdity of only one political state being represented by multiple teams still stands. Hence why it is the only part of the world where, under FIFA's rules, a single passport would entitle you to play for any one of 4 teams.

What Large Serbian population? They've been exiled by a form of ethnic cleansing!:rolleyes:

[dcfcsteve]

Exactly; brokered by Sir Stanley Rous, the proceeds from a Great Britain XI v Rest of the World XI in 1946 were donated to FIFA in order to refinance it after the Second World War/"Emergency"/whatever you call it. In return, Rous arranged i) a Vice Presidency for the Home Nations (in rotation, I believe) and ii) recognition of the separate and "special" status of the four home Associations. Both concessions were conferred in perpetuity. Like it or not Steve, dem's de rules.

Dems may be the rules now PP - but as we all knowm rules are both made and changed.

There is continual pressure on FIFA for this situation to be addressed. The Welsh even had to create a national league 14 years ago to ease the pressure on themselves. The recent vote in Catalunya to elevate the legal status of that region formally to one of a 'nation' within Spain will almost inevitably see them try to get recognition for their own football team at some point. This may well be the issue that brings all of this to a head - as powerful UEFA members like Spain, France and Turkey (and possibly the Belgian officials) would vehemently oppose a Catalunyan team, whilst the Catalans themselves wouldl point to the 4 representatives from the UK to justify their inclusion. This would force UEFA/FIFA to tackle the issue one way or another for good - refernec back to a rule brokered in some smokey back-room over 60yrs ago just won't wash with anyone. To suggest that world football will always forever and a day be be-holden to a unique and patently unfair deal done last century is ridiculous. Rules change to reflect changing realities.

As for the Vice-Presidency going in rotation. It does - and was actually meant to rotate every one or two years. However, Harry Cavan decided that he quite liked being a FIFA bigwig, so stayed in the VP position for over a decade ! It's rotated much, much slower since then.

[dcfcsteve]

What Large Serbian population? They've been exiled by a form of ethnic cleansing!:rolleyes:

There are 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo. That is a large number of people.

It amounts to over 5% of the total population. The Serbian population of Kosovo is, for example, 250% higher than the black population of Britain.

So its simply wrong to claim they've all been driven out/ethnically cleansed. Their numbers are down, but they still have a clear presence.

[dcfcsteve]

I don't see how it's an advantage.

I'll explain it again. The UK has 4 attempts at having representatives from it's state represented at major tournamnets. Every other political state has only 1. The fact that different parts within the UK may or may not support the others is irrelevant.

What if UEFA just decided tomorrow to give Spain 4 times as many entrants into the Champions League and UEFA Cup. Not for any defensible reason like performaces etc - but just because Spain helped them out a bit in 1911. Would the fact that Barcelona fans would rather see Real Madrid or Espanyol do badly suddenly make that rule fair ? No. Do you think such a rule would be accepted by fans of club sides in other nations ? No. So why should it be accepted in international football ?



The "historical quirk of faith" as you call it...

Where did I call it that....?


is due to the fact that the Brits invented the organized sport of association football. None of the countries denied places in the places in the world cup would have association football teams if it wasn't for the Brits.

Absolute nonsense - the real reason for this rule was explained earlier. This sounds like the sort of sentimental yarn your ageing English grandad would tell you in front of the hearth one night when you were a young lad. I believe the English would label such a story 'poppycock'.


I am see myself as a liberal nationalist not a "petty nationalist" as you call it. I'm such a liberal nationalist I was called mealy mouthed by someone on this thread when I suggested Ireland after unification should join the Commonwealth. (An idea voiced before by Eamon O Kuiv (Caoimh) and Jim McDaid members of the Republican wing of Fianna Fail.)

Good for you. Now, can you try and keep nationalist sentiment out of a core issue of equity of treatment within world football. Resort to nationalistic sentimentality is no reason for or against such a rule - and certainly won't wash with other footballing nations, who frankly don't give a flying feck about parochial issues such as Scotland's relationship to England in the context of the world game.


I can't agree with you. Especially when the English are becoming more aware of their seperate identity from the Scots and the Welsh. Evidence of this is increasing number of English St Georges crosses instead of Union Jacks. I actually much rather see England win the World Cup than the UK. My father was the son of an Englishman like Patrick Pearse.:D

Tell that to an African team and see if they give a sh!t.....


Anyway must people in England call themselves English not British and only ever used the term 'British' out of regard for the Scots. As an Irish Nationalist I believe the sooner "Scotshire" takes it's place among the independent nations of the world as Scotland the better.

Sorry - I thought this was a football thread......?:confused:

[dcfcsteve]

Heh. Yes, they're independent in everything bar foreign affairs- but the definition of foreign affairs is probably more elastic in Torshavn than Tobermory. Basically, given their size, isolation climate etc. the islands are hugely reliant on the outside World- Denmark, largely- for almost everything which needs to be imported.

They aren't a separate country and in practice aren't any more autonomous than Scotland, Wales or NI in many ways. Much of their autonomy is purely due to distance from anywhere else.

Andorra isn't a separate country. Its heads of state are the French president and a Spanish bishop acting as proxy for the King in Madrid. Liechtenstein and San Marino are in effect glorified poste restante offices. I very much doubt anyone there would claim everyday life was more autonomous than in the Creggan estate, but next time I'm in Vaduz I'll ask.

But there is one huge key difference - and that is that the states you've mentioned do not define themselves, nor are they legally established, in terms of, and including, their relationship with those secondary entities.

Denmark is legally established as 'The kingdom of Denmark'. Note the lack of any reference to its crown territories of Greenland and Faroe Islands - they are not established as integral parts of that nation or political state.

Likewise, Spain/France do not define themselves in relation to, or including, Andorra. The same goes for Leichtenstein, San Marino etc.

However - the UK is legally estlished as 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Great Britain comprises of England, Wales and Scotland. The 4 British home nations are therefore recognised and established as integral parts of the UK. Without it's relationship to the Faroes, Denmark would still be Denmark. Without the co-relationship between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK would cease to exist. If only one member of the 4 left (e.g. NI), the state would have to be legally redefined. That is the key difference.

As an aside - so San Marino is no more autonomous than the Creggan Estate ? Well, San Marino is the world's oldest constitutional Republic. It issues it's own stamps, and has its own military and police force. Despite the fact that is is surrounded on all sides by an EU nation, it has chosen to not officially be a member of the EU itself. Despite that, it has chosen to use the Euro, under special agreement, and even mints it's own national version of the coins as well. A very peculiar lack of autonomy indeed. I'll get straight onto the Creggan Co-op to demand parity of treatment immediately........

[dcfcsteve]

Do the Faroes, Andorra, Lichtenstein and San Marino issue their own passports? Surely this is the key question. The abnormality with the four British 'countries' is that they don't, hence all the problems which have led to this thread. Do these other 'countries', which FIFA permits to participate in international football, issue their own passports, or do for instance the Faroese have Danish passports?

Well - the Faroese issue their own passports and visas, though they are also entitled to Danish passports. They also produce their own currency and stamps, and have their own indepdendent fiscal policies (e.g. tax-free shopping), which goes way beyond any supposed form of autonomy within the UK. The only thing they don't do is look after defense and foreign policy - whish is not unusual amongst tiny nations with histoprical ties to much stronger powers.

San Marino is unquestionably an independent and soverign state. It is recognised by the UN as such, and has consulates around the world. End of story.

Leichtenstein is a constitutional Monarchy that is independently run in every way. It remained neutral durign WWII, and only give women the vote in 1984 ! It alsoontrols its own entry status (though it shadows the Swiss in this).

Andorra is likewise a full UN member - meaning it is recognised as an independent country. Spain and France look after its defense, just like the Danes do so for the Faroese. But that does not stop them being independent.

I'm surprised by the level of snobbery towards these countries on this thread. The UN is happy to accept these states as genuine countries, yet some people on here think they know better. All either fully independent, or as good as. All have levels of autonomy/soverignty leaps and bounds beyond what Scotland, Wales and NI have.

So we're back to the original point of the UK being the only cohesive political state to have multiple representatives in World football.

[Schumi]

the Faroese... produce their own currency
Only notes. So do Scotland and the North so that's not really relevant here.

[dcfcsteve]

Only notes. So do Scotland and the North so that's not really relevant here.

Come back to the table when they can produce their own passports........ :rolleyes:

[dcfcsteve]

I was not being at all snobbish. I didn't express an opinion, I asked a question.

Apologies TF - that was a general comment, and not aimed at you (hence why i didn't refer to you).

[Plastic Paddy]

Dems may be the rules now PP - but as we all know rules are both made and changed.

Indeed they are Steve but, as part of the Rous deal, the four home Associations hold the equivalent of a "golden share" (i.e. they would jointly and severally have to back such a change themselves for it to happen). Consequently there's much less chance of the change you champion actually happening. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.


There is continual pressure on FIFA for this situation to be addressed. The Welsh even had to create a national league 14 years ago to ease the pressure on themselves.

You're conflating two different stories here. The Welsh situation had nothing at all to do with FIFA and everything to do with UEFA. Without a national league no Welsh clubs would have been allowed to participate (I won't say compete) in the Champions League; the League of Wales was formed in direct response to this.

In any case, you have so far failed to address the issue of domestic football. A United Kingdom team would need a United Kingdom league. Adding Celtic and Rankers to the Premiership wouldn't be enough; there would need to be a wholesale integration of the leagues from the four countries and there's no way a UK league could start without including Welsh and NI representatives. Linfield v Liverpool? Cwmbran v Celtic? Can you just imagine these fixtures? Complete mismatches that would render UK football a laughing-stock in world terms.

Likewise, the four Associations would need to become one, and it's hardly likely that the four oldest associations in world football would sacrifice their individual histories nor their positions of power in the world game just to come into line with what "lesser" member Associations may want.

Whilst you have a fair point in highlighting the anomaly of four-in-one, there's just too much interest in the status quo to ever let it happen; on top of the four separate Associations and their desire to preserve their own identities, there's the Premiership and its members wishing to keep the money to themselves. For those reasons alone, your idea is a non-starter.

:ball: PP

[Paddy Ramone]

If dfcsteve gets his way and there was a UK side all the players with Irish passports in NI (mostly nationalists) would play for Ireland while the players with British passports (mostly unionists) would play for the UK. That doesn't sound great for cross community relations. Oh oops I mentioned politics on a football forum which dfcsteve doesn't like. But then he did tell Paisley that he could "feck off with his blinkered attitude". It seems he can't obey his own rule. I only brought politics in this debate because it overlaps with it.

[Paddy Ramone]

I'll explain it again. The UK has 4 attempts at having representatives from it's state represented at major tournamnets. Every other political state has only 1. The fact that different parts within the UK may or may not support the others is irrelevant.

But the four countries in the UK are quite clearly different entities in football even if they all have the same passport. It's not four UK teams, each representing the whole of the UK but four teams representing the four parts of the UK.


Absolute nonsense - the real reason for this rule was explained earlier. This sounds like the sort of sentimental yarn your ageing English grandad would tell you in front of the hearth one night when you were a young lad. I believe the English would label such a story 'poppycock'.

The English FA is the oldest governing body in the world which is why they just calls themselves the "Football Association". The England v.Scotland international is the oldest international in the world. Once they had they had their international teams and associations established they were hardly going to scrap them.


Sorry - I thought this was a football thread......?:confused:

Sorry for bringing politis into it, but your idea wouldn't be so bad if pushed the Scots to vote for independence.

[CollegeTillIDie]

There are 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo. That is a large number of people.

It amounts to over 5% of the total population. The Serbian population of Kosovo is, for example, 250% higher than the black population of Britain.

So its simply wrong to claim they've all been driven out/ethnically cleansed. Their numbers are down, but they still have a clear presence.

There used to be 4 times that number before the KLA got started !:rolleyes:

[Gather round]

Denmark is legally established as 'The kingdom of Denmark'. Note the lack of any reference to its crown territories of Greenland and Faroe Islands - they are not established as integral parts of that nation or political state...likewise, Spain/France do not define themselves in relation to, or including, Andorra. The same goes for Leichtenstein etc.

San Marino...has chosen to use the Euro, under special agreement

I don't think the lack of references is relevant. As well as what you say above, the smaller areas don't define themselves as minor regions to the larger countries- but in practice that's what they are. The Faeroes issue equivalent to Ulster banknotes, but they're in Danish knonor. I imagine you might struggle to spend one in upcountry Jylland or Bornholm.

San Marino hasn't really "chosen" to use the Euro. Its small size means an equivalent to the Swiss Franc (which is, incidentally, closely linked to and arguably dependent on, the Euro as it was previously to the Deutschmark) is impractical.


If only one member of the 4 left (e.g. NI), the state would have to be legally redefined. That is the key difference

It's a legal nicety, but it's got little to do with football. In reality, there's no legal reason why NI and Scotland shouldn't play international football in the same way as the Faeroes or Andorra. Nor indeed why the NI or Scottish FAs should, or shouldn't, have a FIFA sinecure. There's nothing to stop FIFA renegotiating how the committee to consider changes to the laws of the game is appointed.

[dcfcsteve]

Before I begin PP - thanks for being one of the few people on here capable of tackling the issue itself, rather than getting into misty-eyed notions of politics and nationalism, or side-tracked irrelevant details such as currencies.


Indeed they are Steve but, as part of the Rous deal, the four home Associations hold the equivalent of a "golden share" (i.e. they would jointly and severally have to back such a change themselves for it to happen). Consequently there's much less chance of the change you champion actually happening. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.


....it's hardly likely that the four oldest associations in world football would sacrifice their individual histories nor their positions of power in the world game just to come into line with what "lesser" member Associations may want.

At the core of this issue is the politics of international football. And as history has shown when it comes to politics, turkeys often do vote for Christmas - when it becomes no longer politically tenable for them to refuse to do so.

Politics is full of examples of vested interests agreeing for change that is against their own narrow interests. Take the UN. It's only genuine function - security - is effectively in the hands of a closed-shop Council of 5 permanent members. They are ever-present, and not only have a veto, but that includes a veto on removing the veto. Hey presto - about as entrenched a position as you can get. But I fully expect the P5 of the UN Security Council to accept other permanent members at some future point - possible even within the next decade. This is because it is becoming increasingly untenable politically to have a P5 that only includes the victorious nations of WW2. A P5 with France, but not Germany; China, but not Japan; and Russia, but not India (or even a large nuclear Muslim country like Pakistan) is becoming increasingly untenable in the modern world. The world has changed - eventually the UN Security Council will as well. It will undoubtedly take time, but at some point the turkeys will vote to diminish their own power and influence by accepting new members.

World football is no different. There could be any number of issues on which the privileged status of the UK reaches a point of untenability within the world game, and FIFA either realises that or has the change forced on it. Even something as minor as a FIFA Presidential candidate making a promise to do so to secure a crucial block of votes from developing nations could be enough to force the change, if that candidate then got elected. We've seen candidates allegedly involved in vote-rigging, corruption and fraud to get elected - sacrificing the 'home nation's would be an easy price to agree to for key electoral support.

I see two key events in the next 6 years that might bring this whole issue to a head :

CATALUNYA
It will be interesting to see if the leading Catalan nationalist parties, buoyed by their positive referendum vote on ascending to 'nation' status within Spain, decide to push the concept of a separate team. I don't think they will, as that really would be a massive political can of worms in Spain - much bigger than the greater political autonomy they've gained. But you never know - it would only take one of the more separatist-minded coalition parties to make it a key issue in giving their support to the current left-wing government.

2012 OLYMPICS
I see this as a bigger threat - and judging by the initial reactions of the Scottish and Welsh FA's, so do they ! The government wants a Team GB, as does the GB Olympic Committee. The English and Norn Irish FA's are keen on the idea - the Scottish and Welsh are not. There can be no doubt that any combined UK team would soner or later be used to threaten the Home Nation's position within FIFA. Scotland and Wales clearly understand that.

If the positon of the Home Nations in world football is indeed as cast-iron and concrete-safe as you suggest, then why are the Scots and Welsh so worried about a proposed UK Olympics Team ? This is very telling. Is it because they understand the politics of international football and the repercussions a GB OLympic team could have - regardless of what the turkeys wanted themselves.......?


You're conflating two different stories here. The Welsh situation had nothing at all to do with FIFA and everything to do with UEFA. Without a national league no Welsh clubs would have been allowed to participate (I won't say compete) in the Champions League; the League of Wales was formed in direct response to this.

I don't think I am PP. The reason why the Welsh League was created was explained to me in person last year by Alun Davies - who was President of the Welsh FA at the time, the man who set the league up, and the Home Nation's formal rep on the FIFA steering committee.

Also, here's a quote from a BBC webpage on the history of the Welsh Premier League :


"This situation was being exploited in FIFA circles by African and Asian nations who resented the independent status of the four British associations, and who saw the participation of the senior Welsh clubs in English football as a contradiction of that status".

Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/matchofthedaywales/features/history/welsh_prem.shtml


In any case, you have so far failed to address the issue of domestic football. A United Kingdom team would need a United Kingdom league. Adding Celtic and Rankers to the Premiership wouldn't be enough; there would need to be a wholesale integration of the leagues from the four countries and there's no way a UK league could start without including Welsh and NI representatives. Linfield v Liverpool? Cwmbran v Celtic? Can you just imagine these fixtures? Complete mismatches that would render UK football a laughing-stock in world terms.

Firstly - I'm not convinced of the necessity for a single UK league if there was a single UK team. Wales had an international team for decades without having had a single welsh league. As mentioned above, it was only meddling from developing nations about broader issues (i.e. the multiple UK teams) that brought an end to this situation. If Wales could have multiple, non-national leagues - why also couldn't the UK ?

Secondly - if it came to the crunch, this issue would be a red herring. I have absolutely no doubt that even if a single league was required - if the Home Nations were prepared to rescind their privileged international position, they would be allowed to keep their individual leagues if they made that a condition of doing so. Absolutely No doubt whatsoever. The developing nations wouldn't care one-jot about the leagues, and if it was the clincher to get the turkeys to vote for Christmas then it would happen. So I don't believe that this issue would ever really arise.

Thirdly - as if in any Uk league the likes of Liverpool and Cwmbran would ever be put into the same division immediately !! It would be like saying there should never be a European League because no-one would want to see St Joseph's Boys v Barcelona from the start........

[dcfcsteve]

But the four countries in the UK are quite clearly different entities in football even if they all have the same passport. It's not four UK teams, each representing the whole of the UK but four teams representing the four parts of the UK.

I understand that fully thanks. But it is irrelevant. Each individual part of Spain - with much more autonomy than the UK's 'nations' for example - don't get to have their own teams. That is why it is unfair. I don't know why you're not grasping this.


The English FA is the oldest governing body in the world which is why they just calls themselves the "Football Association". The England v.Scotland international is the oldest international in the world. Once they had they had their international teams and associations established they were hardly going to scrap them.

Thanks for the primary school history lesson. See above for response on this - contrary to popular belief, vested interests often do vote in ways that run contrary to their narrow interests....


Sorry for bringing politis into it, but your idea wouldn't be so bad if pushed the Scots to vote for independence.

Football anyone.....? :confused:

[dcfcsteve]

If dfcsteve gets his way and there was a UK side all the players with Irish passports in NI (mostly nationalists) would play for Ireland while the players with British passports (mostly unionists) would play for the UK. That doesn't sound great for cross community relations.

You're talking out of your arse PR - where did I even begin to suggest anything like that ?:rolleyes:

Considering that anyone born in the Republic is entitled to a British passport, and anyone born in the north (to Irish parents) an Irish one under the GFA, you'd be wrong anyway, as they could play for either side if they wanted to.

[dcfcsteve]

I don't think the lack of references is relevant. As well as what you say above, the smaller areas don't define themselves as minor regions to the larger countries- but in practice that's what they are. The Faeroes issue equivalent to Ulster banknotes, but they're in Danish knonor. I imagine you might struggle to spend one in upcountry Jylland or Bornholm.

San Marino hasn't really "chosen" to use the Euro. Its small size means an equivalent to the Swiss Franc (which is, incidentally, closely linked to and arguably dependent on, the Euro as it was previously to the Deutschmark) is impractical.

All very interesting, but wholly irrelevant.

San Marino is an independent constitutional republic recognised by the UN. Full stop. Hence it is completely and utterly entitled to an international football team. Your personal thoughts on their monetary arrangements don't change that.

Faroes is independent in all bar defense. It even issues its own free-standing internationally recognised passports. It is because of facts like this that it is allowed an international team. It's degree of independence exceeds even the likes of free-standing British political units such as the Isle of Man, let alone integral parts of the UK state like Wales. Hence, it is leaps and bounds aheda of the UK 'nation's in terms of entitlement.


It's a legal nicety, but it's got little to do with football. In reality, there's no legal reason why NI and Scotland shouldn't play international football in the same way as the Faeroes or Andorra. Nor indeed why the NI or Scottish FAs should, or shouldn't, have a FIFA sinecure. There's nothing to stop FIFA renegotiating how the committee to consider changes to the laws of the game is appointed.

No legal reason indeed. But there is a discrepancy in FIFA/UEFA's rules here that is under constant degrees of pressure to be addressed. Pressure of the kind that forced the FAW to go to the effort of introducing its first ever national league as a defensive measure. This is not a legal issue - but one of the politics of world football.

P.S. Apologies to all for the multiple responses.

[Gather round]

thanks for being one of the few people on here capable of tackling the issue itself

No thanks for being so patronising, Steve. I think everyone else here realises what the issue is for you- that Britain shouldn't have multiple international football teams. Or, slightly more crudely, [the] Northern Ireland [team] shouldn't exist.


I'm surprised by the level of snobbery towards these countries on this thread. The UN is happy to accept these states as genuine countries, yet some people on here think they know better

It's you who are snobbish, as above. I and others mentioned the Faroes because quite obviously it is not an independent country, and it self-defines thus. So, Denmark has two teams in international competitions. To use your own favourite quip, 'end of'- though actually it could start a fascinating discussion elsewhere.

Incidentally, I don't follow the parallel in your UN Security Council allegory. Pakistan or Indonesia's worries about global security are hardly comparable to whether Jim Boyce gets to determine the width of goal lines, or whatever, indefinitely. So the latter may not be quite the hot potato you suggest.

I- and I think most other foot.ie readers, since few have said otherwise- are quite happy for the Faroes, and the other tiny countries, to play international football. It's a false argument to imply otherwise.


Your personal thoughts on their monetary arrangements don't change that [San Marino is independent]

Cheeky. I only offered an opinion (that SM uses the Euro because it would be inconvenient, indeed silly to do otherwise), because YOU threw in that they chose to do so as some sort of favour to the Italians who surround them. I'm surprised you mentioned this, as it hardly makes a case for Sammarinese autonomy. In practice, they're like a smaller version of the Channel Islands, continuing to use British pounds.


It will be interesting to see if the leading Catalan nationalist parties, buoyed by their positive referendum vote on ascending to 'nation' status within Spain, decide to push the concept of a separate team. I don't think they will, as that really would be a massive political can of worms in Spain

I agree the Catalan (football) politicians may stop short of a breakaway. But the thing is, I don't think it has any more implication for NI than for Norway. If Spain, Italy or whoever fragment into three or four teams apiece, welcome to the party. Pre-qualifying groups for Euro 2525 may need to be rejigged, but we'll deal with that when it happens. Essentially you're saying 'it might be significant if it happens, but I'm not sure how, and anyway it won't happen'...

FIFA might get tough and say 'no you can't, and nor can the British any more'. But this just isn't realistic. They have a lot less to gain than we to lose; we can refer back to our long separate football histories; both the entry of the village teams, and the break-up of the ex-Soviet countries in the 1990s arguably strengthen our position vis a vis 20 years ago.

The Africans and Asians may revive their challenge to get rid of our teams? Maybe. Why is it such a big issue for them- in crude number terms, the Africans have as many votes at FIFA as Europe does. Can we see some evidence of their past initiatives?


The government wants a Team GB, as does the GB Olympic Committee. The English and Norn Irish FA's are keen on the idea - the Scottish and Welsh are not. There can be no doubt that any combined UK team would soner or later be used to threaten the Home Nation's position within FIFA. Scotland and Wales clearly understand that

I'll admit NI and the Irish FA's position looks odd here. Clearly an Olympic team including one token U-21 player from NI would be silly. On the other hand, if that's what happens, I doubt FIFA would kick out England and NI unilaterally. There'd still be three British teams even if they did...


If the positon of the Home Nations in world football is indeed as cast-iron and concrete-safe as you suggest, then why are the Scots and Welsh so worried about a proposed UK Olympics Team ? This is very telling

It's rather simpler than you suggest. Their positions are cast-iron BECAUSE they're predictably shunning a UK team!


But there is a discrepancy in FIFA/UEFA's rules here that is under constant degrees of pressure to be addressed. Pressure of the kind that forced the FAW to go to the effort of introducing its first ever national league as a defensive measure. This is not a legal issue - but one of the politics of world football

Evidence? (This isn't a dig, but a fair question- who's doing the pressing?). The thing is, the makeup of the FIFA lawmaking committee is pretty small beer. If there was a genuine lobby against it, wouldn't the British sinecures have disappeared years ago?

[Hecko]

Reality check -
Given the relative strength of NI/Wales/Scotland (and probably also England!) in a European context, does anyone really think that 1 team or 4 would really effect the number of European teams represented at a World Cup?

There are some anomolous aspects to the situation but they are not completely unique in World terms. If the three teams were wiped out there woudl be a strong argument for retaining Euro representation as it is, especially with Montenegro (definitely) and Kosovo to join.

Betya Montenegro woud fancy their chances against a joint NI/Wales 11!

[Paddy Ramone]

Or, slightly more crudely, [the] Northern Ireland [team] shouldn't exist.

Yeah that's right. Steve wants a all-Ireland team. But if the four British associations were forced to merge most players from a unionist background would choose to play for the UK and not Ireland. Not unless the IFA and FAI merged as a thirty two county body seperate from Great Britain. I think that is unlikely to happen given that most of the IFA are unionist.

While I'd prefer an-Ireland team like George Best. I think for an all-Ireland team ever to happen we'll have to wait until political unification (which might or might not happen) to see it as a reality.

[Gather round]

But if the four British associations were forced to merge most players from a unionist background would choose to play for the UK and not Ireland. Not unless the IFA and FAI merged as a thirty two county body seperate from Great Britain. I think that is unlikely to happen given that most of the IFA are unionist

Of course it's all notional Paddy, but why wouldn't unionist players from NI declare for an all-Ireland team?They already do in other sports, like rugby union; they did immediately after partition until the FAI split; they might prefer the statistically greater chance of actually playing :)

[Paddy Ramone]

Faroes is independent in all bar defense. It even issues its own free-standing internationally recognised passports. It is because of facts like this that it is allowed an international team. It's degree of independence exceeds even the likes of free-standing British political units such as the Isle of Man, let alone integral parts of the UK state like Wales. Hence, it is leaps and bounds aheda of the UK 'nation's in terms of entitlement

The UK is a state not a nation. Scotland has a seperate legal system, education system and a seperate presbyterian national church. It was an independent nation from 1328 to 1603 and would have remained a seperate state if Queen Elizabeth I had married and provided heirs to the English throne. It had it's own sovereign parliament until 1707.

It could be argued that the Scots and the Welsh have a more distinct cultural and ethnic identity from the English than the Germans/Dutch or Germans/Austrians. The Dutch language developed from a dialect of Low German. Parts of Scotland have more in common culturally and racially with Scandanavia and Ireland than England.

[Paddy Ramone]

Of course it's all notional Paddy, but why wouldn't unionist players from NI declare for an all-Ireland team?They already do in other sports, like rugby union; they did immediately after partition until the FAI split; they might prefer the statistically greater chance of actually playing :)

Then we should have an all-Ireland team tomorrow.:D

[CollegeTillIDie]

Kerry has just issued it's own passports as tourist gimmick. So why can't the Wee North? they could be Red and Yellow ( the colours of Ulster) and Have NORN IRON on the front. Problem solved :D

[dcfcsteve]

I think everyone else here realises what the issue is for you- that Britain shouldn't have multiple international football teams. Or, slightly more crudely, [the] Northern Ireland [team] shouldn't exist.

A very predictable attempt to rubbish my viewpoint by assigning your own narrow political prejudices against it. For the record - I have no desire whatsoever to see a single British team. In fact, I would love to see it taken further - I had an article published 7 years ago calling for the establishmnet of an Isle of Man team in international football (I know - part of neither the UK or Britain, but a British Isle and a British territory...). I'd also love to see separate Basque, Catalan etc teams in international football, as well as the Welsh. Even if I did want to see a single British team, it wouldn't make my viewpoint any less relevant anyway

What i don't want to see, however, is the anachronism of institutional favouritism in international football. It made short-term sense 5 decades ago, but is increasingly non-sensical and unequitable in the present and future.


It's you who are snobbish, as above. I and others mentioned the Faroes because quite obviously it is not an independent country, and it self-defines thus. So, Denmark has two teams in international competitions. To use your own favourite quip, 'end of'- though actually it could start a fascinating discussion elsewhere.

Firstly - define independent ? I suspect strongly that whatever definition you use would therefore mean that the likes of Australia, New Zealand, Canada dn Jamaica are not 'indepedent' - which would show how complicated the question is in the first place. There is no simple 'yes/no' answer to the question "Is this country independent" as history, culture and location mean that a lot of nations that are de facto or even as good as independent are technically not (e.g. Australia).

Secondly - to bring the debate back to the issue where we began, passports are the only internationally accepted manner in which a person can prove their nationality. The Faroe Islands produce their own passposrts. A Faroese person could travel the world with a Faroes passport and not a Danish one. That to a large degree exhibits their de facto independence.

Thirdly, unlike players for the 4 UK teams and the ROI, Faroese players in internationall football can incontravertibly prove their entitlement to play for their country (i.e. through their passposrt). Furtehr evience of the unambiguous status of the islands.

Finally, you're confusing 2 concepts here. The Faroe Island are Danish, but not Denmark. There is a huge difference. The Falklands are British, but clearly not part of Britain, the British Isles or the UK. Hence, Denmark does not have 2 teams in International football. Just like the US does not have 2 teams, despite its relationship with Puerto Rico.


The Africans and Asians may revive their challenge to get rid of our teams? Maybe. Why is it such a big issue for them- in crude number terms, the Africans have as many votes at FIFA as Europe does. Can we see some evidence of their past initiatives?

Evidence? (This isn't a dig, but a fair question- who's doing the pressing?). The thing is, the makeup of the FIFA lawmaking committee is pretty small beer. If there was a genuine lobby against it, wouldn't the British sinecures have disappeared years ago?

Who knows why its such a big issue. I'm sure it differs by time and country. Some won't like the enshrined political influence it gives European/British teams. Some would doubtless use it when they think it would help them pursue their own individual agendas. Whilst others would, like myself, consider it as unsporting and not the type of thing that a modern international sporting organisation should be looking to persist with.

As for evidence of oposition to this - I posted a quote earlier from a BBC website saying that pressure form African/Asian nations had effectively forced the Welsh into setting up their own national domestic league. So the British sinecures haven't disappeared yet, but they are under attack on occassion, and assuming that continues will disappear at some point. At the momnet, no-one had had the political leverage/necessity to force the change
through FIFA. But as the body is an extremely political animal, at some point somebody probably will.

[Gather round]

A very predictable attempt to rubbish my viewpoint by assigning your own narrow political prejudices against it

I'm not the one trying to abolish others' national football teams. You are, as clearly shown in your comments earlier in the thread and quoted below. My political prejudices are quite wide-ranging, actually, and while I wouldn't claim any expertise in the constitution of the Faeroe Islands, I can spot wind-up and unsubtle attempts to blind with science well enough.


For the record - I have no desire whatsoever to see a single British team

Secondly - I am one Irish man who would like to see a British team, because it is grossly unfair to have it any other way

Make your mind up! Here's some more,


The UK has a thoroughly unfair advantage, and eventually it'll be forced to relinquish it for one or other reason

So the historical anachronism/absurdity of only one political state being represented by multiple teams still stands

Because of this ridiculous rule, 2 additional countries/states were effectively excluded from participating in those World Cups

The ONLY reason the UK has 4 represntative sides in world football is because it is a quirk of history

My emphasis. Did you ever go to that Isle of Man summer thingy, btw? Crusaders used to attend regularly.


Firstly - define independent ? I suspect strongly that whatever definition you use would therefore mean that the likes of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Jamaica are not 'independent'

The Faroes are represented in the Danish Parliament. The others are not in either the British or any third country's. (This isn't a comprehensive definition of lack of independence, of course, just a fairly obvious illustration of it. The technicalities you mention, though undoubtedly interesting, are irrelevant).


So the British sinecures haven't disappeared yet, but they are under attack on occassion, and assuming that continues will disappear at some point. At the momnent, no-one had had the political leverage/necessity to force the change through FIFA

Northern Ireland and Wales don't have any political leverage at FIFA. Why should they? Small countries with insignifcant TV markets, weak domestic leagues, and actually a record of underperformance even compared with similarly sized neighbours in recent years. Slovenia made two finals and a play-off between 1998-2004; NI and Wales have one play off between them in 20 attempts since 1986!

So, necessity then. The thing is, there's no necessity for African nor Asian countries to kick IFA, SFA and WFA junketeeers off their committees. If there was, they'd have done it by now.

See you in Klagenfurt and Basel. Viel gluck!

[dcfcsteve]

I'm not the one trying to abolish others' national football teams. You are, as clearly shown in your comments earlier in the thread and quoted below. My political prejudices are quite wide-ranging, actually, and while I wouldn't claim any expertise in the constitution of the Faeroe Islands, I can spot wind-up and unsubtle attempts to blind with science well enough.

We can all pull quotes out of context to portray someone's views in a certain light, GR, but my viewpoint has been very clear all along. Ideally I would like to see any territory that has a culturally, ethnically or linguistically distinct heritage have its own representative team in International football. Hence, I would ideally like to see the British teams maintained, and joined by the likes of Catalunya, the Basque Country, Kurdistan, Tibet, Isle of Man etc. Hence why I said I wouldn't like to see a British team. I was talking in ideal terms. Hardly the view of someone who suppoisedly wants to abolish anyone's teams....

However - the current reality of international football is that only a specific set of culturally, ethnically and/or linguistically distinct territories are allowed to have an international team and are given a permanent seat on FIFA to-boot, whilst many others are allowed neither. Hence my comment that "I am one Irish man who would like to see a British team, because it is grossly unfair to have it any other way". Note that I said I only wanted to see a single British team because it was unfair to have it any different. I have no inherent desire to see a single British team. There is a very clear difference here - the difference between what i would like to see in an ideal world, and what I believe is political reality dictates to ensure equity of standing/treatment in international football.

I'll repeat again that this whole issue is about removing favouritism and treating everyone in international football the same. Hence, it should be all or nothing - not one rule for UK teams, and another for the rest of the world. Ideally, I'd like to see this resolved by removing the permanent FIFA seat for the UK teams and liberalising the rules governing how teams are accepted into international football so that more - not less - can be welcomed. But if that ideal isn't politically possible, then I believe the only fair alternative is to enforce the rules in the other direction - having a single British team (preferably with the permanent seat removed as well). Like I said, it should be one or the other : not one rule for one, and another for everyone else. I see no contradiction in this viewpoint.


My emphasis. Did you ever go to that Isle of Man summer thingy, btw? Crusaders used to attend regularly.

No - I was too young, and it pre-dated Derry's resurrection. I used to collect the progs for it though. Bohs were the usual LOI reps (although I think Dundalk did it once as well).


Northern Ireland and Wales don't have any political leverage at FIFA. Why should they? Small countries with insignifcant TV markets, weak domestic leagues, and actually a record of underperformance even compared with similarly sized neighbours in recent years. Slovenia made two finals and a play-off between 1998-2004; NI and Wales have one play off between them in 20 attempts since 1986!

Well they have a seat on FIFA's ruling committee handed to them every so often. Harry Cavan had to have it dragged back off him, ffs ! True - the type of decisions taken at that level are often more technical than political, but a seat at the top table is a seat at the top table, no matter how small you are.


So, necessity then. The thing is, there's no necessity for African nor Asian countries to kick IFA, SFA and WFA junketeeers off their committees. If there was, they'd have done it by now.

Political necessities/realities change, so it would be wrong to think 'que sera, sera'. Otherwise, how did the necessity for a Welsh national league arise....?


See you in Klagenfurt and Basel. Viel gluck!

Not unless you're going via Stuttgart, Prague and Llubjana ! :) (And by the way - being a northern ROI fan does not by default make me anti-NI).

[Gather round]

We may have to largely agree to differ for the moment, Steve.

You're right about Klagenfurt/ Basel though. The nearest the NI team- as opposed to the fans on holiday- will get to Euro 2008, is our qualifier in Vaduz in March :)

Aren't you a little negative about your chances though? OK, it's a toughish group but the Czechs will lose the core of their team retiring, ye can take points off Germany and the rest are beatable. The Wales games should have a good atmosphere.

BTW, I was reminded of a question Derry City when talking to a couple of NI fans from the city recently. You've probably seen Sean's banner on TV at internationals, I was just wondering how many from the Waterside etc. still turn up at the Brandywell? Just idle curiosity, no ulterior motive for asking.

[David]

Disappointed to hear on the Beeb radio, last night on a partially related subject that one of the 'bands', parading in Belfast on Weds., were sporting 'badges' with the slogan 'KAI' which is frankly disgusting!
The Beeb put it down to their :rolleyes: 'eccentricities'. :mad: :mad:

Having been in Belfast 3-4 weeks abo, realise this is a Minority viewpoint, but as a 'Southern prod' who's happily integrated, this is beyond standards of 'banter' etc.


This is purely as a point of information, btw.

Just what this has to do with this thread is way beyond me.

[Gather round]

"Some jokers on here" = everybody other than RD Bloomfield, basically...

[David]

David et al
Just to emphasise, they don't see themselves as, er, 'Irish', which is what some jokers on here, would have us believe. Though I accept it is a minority! Deplorable all the same & very very relevant to the issue of 'national identity'!

Don't let facts get in the way though. I was actually listening to something about this on the radio today and KAI is nothing to do with being Irish or not, the band you mention was named after a Glasgow Rangers player.

[Plastic Paddy]

Don't let facts get in the way though. I was actually listening to something about this on the radio today and KAI is nothing to do with being Irish or not, the band you mention was named after a Glasgow Rangers player.

The famous :rolleyes: Kai Johansen? So famous that no-one outside of Govan or the Sandy Row RSC has ever heard of the man? Utter shîte and yet another example of the OO defending the indefensible. KAI is an obvious homage to the Rathcoole KAI thugs from the 1970s, pure and simple. Come on David, you surely can't fall for such chicanery.

Anyway, this is the subject of a vigorous debate on this site (http://www.sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/an_un_kai_nee_coincidence/) - suggest any further discussion on the subject is conducted there...

:ball: PP

[Not Brazil]

David et al
Just to emphasise, they don't see themselves as, er, 'Irish', which is what some jokers on here, would have us believe. Though I accept it is a minority! Deplorable all the same & very very relevant to the issue of 'national identity'!

As one of the "jokers":rolleyes: you refer to, perhaps you will expand on your comments?

Not all of us up here think along the same lines as the "KAI" Band.

Are you saying that I am not Irish?:eek:

[dcfcsteve]

BTW, I was reminded of a question Derry City when talking to a couple of NI fans from the city recently. You've probably seen Sean's banner on TV at internationals, I was just wondering how many from the Waterside etc. still turn up at the Brandywell? Just idle curiosity, no ulterior motive for asking.

I know Sean well - was in his year at school, and he's a fellow member of the London Derry City Supporters Club (even though he's Oxford based). It's interesting that he's my age a we both experienced tha same mid-1980's Northernb Ireland, republic of Ireland and Derry City FC exposure, yet we decided to follow different international teams. He's very firmly in the minority amongst Derry fans in this - though there would be support for the NI U21's as City have been supplying players to the team for a while now.

Hard to know how many people from the protestant communit turn up to Derry games, but there certainly are some. Not as many as in the IL days - though that will have as much to do with pre-versus-post 1969 Northern Ireland than anythign to do with our club. We probably had more protestant supportesr in our eearly days back in the LOI (ironically, given the politics of the time) - though we also had more of every type of support as well back then. We do have the odd high-profile protestant supporter like 'Linfield Jambo' and others, and the experiences of away fans in the Setanta Cup has shown a lot more that Derry fans are nothing like what people had assumed.

It is commented from time to time on the Derry City forum that it would be good to see more support from the protestant community. The club really is a neutral space on match days - no tricolours (apart maybe from Euro games), no sectarian singning. Even wearing a Celtic top in the Brandywell is likely to lead to snide comments. These are all voluntary measures the fans have taken subconsciously - the club has never had to drive any line on this. Likewise, I would be surprised if there was ever Irish language mottos, signage or anything like that ever introduced into the club - again because it just doesn't suit the ethos of our history and our fan's approach to football.

Hopefully as the trenches get levelled in Norn Irish society we can see more protestants seeing no big deal about watching City play. An all-Island league would doubless help in this - but that's a whole different story..... :) :ball:

[lopez]

...Are you saying that I am not Irish?:eek:Far be it for me to tell anyone what exactly their nationality is this week, but I'm fascinated at how certain unionists claim to be Irish one minute (usually when in the company of nationalists) and British the next. No doubt (once again) I'll hear the same old cojones along the lines of the Trinity of being Irish, British, and the holy spirit, all in one. :rolleyes:

[dcfcsteve]

Far be it for me to tell anyone what exactly their nationality is this week, but I'm fascinated at how certain unionists claim to be Irish one minute (usually when in the company of nationalists) and British the next. No doubt (once again) I'll hear the same old cojones along the lines of the Trinity of being Irish, British, and the holy spirit, all in one. :rolleyes:

I persdonally see no contradiction. I think the problem is that you only have a single, one-dimensional view of 'Irishness' - one wrapped-up in terms of nationalism/republicanism, independence and unity. And invariably you only apply this to Unionists - not to catholics.

If you take the meaning of 'irish' to be what it fundamentally is - someone from the island of Ireland - then how can there be a contradiction ? That is a factual statement of geographical origin, not an emotional expression of political loyalties. Being a Geordie doesn't stop you form being English, as 'Geordie' is merely a descruptor for where you are from. It's the same with the word 'Irish'. How can you therefore be contradicting yourself when you are simply stating a fact ? Unionsts are Irish by origin and British by nationality. Nationality and origin do not always have to overlap completely.

If you load the concept of Irishness with nationalist political baggage, then I can see how you would considfer there to be a contradiction. But that is a contradiction you are creating with your narrow and exclusionary interpretation of what Irishness is.

A lot of northern Irish catholics have no desire for there to be a united Ireland (the majority, if a recent survey is to be believed), so are by default happy to remain under the control of Britain. Does that therefore lay question upon the legitimacy of their claims to be Irish ? Even if they hold an Irish passport ?? I note that it is never anti-united ireland catholics who are deemed to have a schizophrenic attitude towards their nationality or no right to consider themselves Irish. It's only Unionists who are at fault should they consider themselves both Irish and British.

[Not Brazil]

Great post DCFC Steve.

The myopic view of Irishness that some (on both sides) possess is a major hurdle that must be overcome if we are ever to have lasting and meaningful peace on this island.

PS. Hope the Candystripes finish off an excellent job in Europe.

[Gather round]

Thanks for the info aboyut DC fans, Steve.

A Senor Lopez- creo que usted tiene el baton en la mierda :) (lo siento, mi espanol es muy mal. No pasaran!)

[lopez]

I persdonally see no contradiction. I think the problem is that you only have a single, one-dimensional view of 'Irishness' - one wrapped-up in terms of nationalism/republicanism, independence and unity. And invariably you only apply this to Unionists - not to catholics..

I'm laughing here at being accused of 'one-dimensional view of 'Irishness'' when you come up with two examples of your own. Religion and the place your mother dropped you. The second is simple. Being born in a stable doesn't make you automatically a horse. You're intelligent to know that one, or at least I thought so. The first is something that people usually accuse those that ran Stormont for 50 years. Does being Irish entail being Catholic aswell? Erm....no! :rolleyes:


A lot of northern Irish catholics have no desire for there to be a united Ireland (the majority, if a recent survey is to be believed), so are by default happy to remain under the control of Britain.I really had to contain myself with this statement here. In fact it says something but I think David's argument about KAI being linked to some cr*appy Danish footballer from the seventies sounds more plausible. Where are these fantasy figures taken from? I'd agree with the bit about the United Ireland bit, being a narrow question in itself, but haven't you heard of, autonomy, confederacy, joint sovereignty, independence? I don't think this equates with your 'happy to remain under the control of Britain' bullsh*t. I'm sure if it were true that 51% of the Catholic population were, then the likes of the UUP elite wouldn't be getting a bit uncomfortable in their seats when the Reverend Smyth wanted the three other counties of Ulster incorporated into NI as a matter of party policy. However this is all irrelevant, since when has being a Catholic automatically equated with being Irish? By the way, in a poll I remember reading about taken around the time of that plebiscite in the early seventies, over NI's future, 6% of Protestants claimed to support a united Ireland. Roughly 60,000, if true, two thirds the membership of the Orange Order at the time.

Anyway, thanks for answering for Not Brazil and the rest of the lads. Despite the odd nugget of boll*cks, it's still miles more articulate than any of them could offer. :D

[dcfcsteve]

Being born in a stable doesn't make you automatically a horse.

All well and good, were we talking about Shergar. But we're not - we're talking about people.

Why is it so difficult to understand that someone can use the word 'Irish' to describe their place of origin, without it affecting or detracting from their own personal sense of nationality or identity ?:confused: Are people not allowed to define their own identity for themselves ?

Why does this create a problem for you ?

[Gather round]

I think we need a link to that survey you quoted, Steve. If only to reassure Sr Lopez.

Lopez himself may wish to browse up thread. In which he'll see plenty of 'articulate' explanation why Not Brazil, say, is just as Irish as our compadre.

[lopez]

All well and good, were we talking about Shergar. But we're not - we're talking about people.
It's an expression, which seems to have gone over your head.:rolleyes: Think of this. People calling themselves British when they were born and often never left a geographical area that even they wouldn't consider a geographical part of Britain (i.e. Northern Ireland/O6C). :confused:


Why is it so difficult to understand that someone can use the word 'Irish' to describe their place of origin, without it affecting or detracting from their own personal sense of nationality or identity ?:confused: Are people not allowed to define their own identity for themselves ?

Why does this create a problem for you ?As I said, I couldn't care less what people thought they were from week to week. But I am talking about nationality here. Ireland is a nation - state. The fact that a part of it was denied entry into this state along undemocratic means doesn't deny this. Yes you can be (regionally) Irish and (nationality) British, just as you can be regionally Basque and Catalan but nationality be Spanish (the nearest example in Europe I can give to the multinational state of the UK). The funny thing is that all the time I've read forums on NI, I've never seen a SF voting, GAA playing, NI hating 'because they don't like Catholics at Windsor Park' Catholic reply 'but I'm also British.' That's the question I was initially asking.





I think we need a link to that survey you quoted, Steve. If only to reassure Sr Lopez.Well seeing that Steve hasn't done you the honours, I'll provide you with one of the latest polls on the subject.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2004/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html

Only 24% were, to use Steve's 'happy to remain under the control of Britain' so he was talking cojones. That, as a ball park figure is just over twice the number of Protestants that want a united Ireland. Even here the question of 'Joint Authority' which the British government were offering the people of Gibraltar despite knowing it would get an overwhelming No but would possibly split the vote in NI, didn't get asked and might even reduce the absolute unionist vote even further.

What is more interesting is the vote for the 18-24 survey compared with those of 65+. There is huge fall in those wanting to remain part of the UK without a rise in those wanting join the republic. The desire for an independent state is now 22%.

[geysir]

It's a Quality of Life survey where every answer is tediously broken down into the finer details of religious affiliations etc.

Not much debate on the common interests.
Most people from both religions believe, that "strong trade unions are needed to protect employees' working conditions and wages"
that "Ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation's wealth"
"that It is the government's responsibility to provide a job for everyone who wants one"
"That It doesn't really matter which party is in power, in the end things go on much the same"
Seems normal enough to me.

[dcfcsteve]

It's an expression, which seems to have gone over your head.:rolleyes:

I am very familiar with the expression, as famously (though incorrectly) ascribed to the Duke of Wellington. That doesn't change anything with regards my comments on it.


Think of this. People calling themselves British when they were born and often never left a geographical area that even they wouldn't consider a geographical part of Britain (i.e. Northern Ireland/O6C). :confused:


So what would you describve the Falkland Islanders as then (no snide remarks please) ? They are British by nationality - even though most of them will never set foot in Britain ! Again - you're trying to overlap nationality and geography as if they were perfect replicas of each other. You're taking far too narrow an interpretation of nationalit - hence why it's confusing you.


As I said, I couldn't care less what people thought they were from week to week.

Really ? So why all the gurning on here about Unionists having to check to describe themselves as both Irish and British ? If you don't care, why bring it up ?


But I am talking about nationality here. Ireland is a nation - state. The fact that a part of it was denied entry into this state along undemocratic means doesn't deny this.

The Republic of Ireland is the state, not 'Ireland'. There is an obvious difference. Also - I'm surprised to hear you desribe the ROI as a nation state - given that, as you recognise, a large chunk of the nation (geographically and population-wise) lies outside of the ROI. This is a statement of fact - not politics. The Basque Country 'nation' is split between France and Spain. If only the Spanish part went Independent, it would not compose the Basque nation - as a chunk of that nation would still be in France.


Yes you can be (regionally) Irish and (nationality) British, just as you can be regionally Basque and Catalan but nationality be Spanish (the nearest example in Europe I can give to the multinational state of the UK). The funny thing is that all the time I've read forums on NI, I've never seen a SF voting, GAA playing, NI hating 'because they don't like Catholics at Windsor Park' Catholic reply 'but I'm also British.' That's the question I was initially asking.

Sorry lopez - but I haven't got a clue what you're on about here. What question were you intiially supposedly asking - none of the above is a question ?? What have ardent Republicans got to do withe the rights or actions of Unionists in describing themselves as both British and Irish ?? :confused:


Well seeing that Steve hasn't done you the honours, I'll provide you with one of the latest polls on the subject.

Apologies for needing to sleep between the hours of 2 am and 9am, and needing to work in the hours that followed. Note to self - must stock-up on some more of those Superman pills.....


Only 24% were, to use Steve's 'happy to remain under the control of Britain' so he was talking cojones. That, as a ball park figure is just over twice the number of Protestants that want a united Ireland. Even here the question of 'Joint Authority' which the British government were offering the people of Gibraltar despite knowing it would get an overwhelming No but would possibly split the vote in NI, didn't get asked and might even reduce the absolute unionist vote even further.

I'm not sure if you posted the wrong link by accident, but the above survey actually says the complete opposite to what you're suggesting ! Only 22% of total NI population wanted to reunify with the rest of Ireland, versus 59% looking to remain in the UK. The most recent results (the 2005 survey - conducted between Oct 2005 and Jan 2006, and results just released) showed a similar split : 23% for reunification, 58% for remaining in UK. The 2005 results are listed with Catholics split 50-50 between remaining in UK and unification - but their press releases made clear that the figure for untiy is actually less than 50%, as it was rounded up. These results have been pretty much consistent since the annual survey began in 1998. The survey is considered to have a low margin of error, given its relatively large sample size. Who's serving up the cojones now.....?

And I'd argue strongly that any 'joint-authority' question would have a greater negative impact upon the number in favour of reunification than on those for the status quo. Never in the history of Northern Ireland has joint authority been suggested by either side as a credible and aceptable solution. So why should it be asked in such a survey anyway ?

[geysir]

The 2005 results are listed with Catholics split 50-50 between remaining in UK and unification ?

The results read to me as two to one in favour of reunification.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2005/Political_Attitudes/NIRELAND.html

[Not Brazil]

Anyway, thanks for answering for Not Brazil and the rest of the lads. Despite the odd nugget of boll*cks, it's still miles more articulate than any of them could offer. :D

If you cared to read the thread, I have articulated my position quite clearly...not that it requires much articulating, as I am Irish & British - err, simple as that!

Now, if there are any "odd nuggets of ******" that you wish to take up with me, based on my previous posts, please feel free to do so.