Player eligibility row

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Well, thankfully your personal prejudices matter little in this.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

---

Interesting spin on partition, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Interesting spin on partition, that

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

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



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

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

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

---

The paranoia I refer to there, is a terrible thing.
They even now have a whole Forum referring to the FAI referring to them as 'Football Apartheid(in) Ireland', FFS.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

It's a summary, not a spin.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

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

---

Business as usual...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedser

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

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

---

jesus wept, again :)

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

post 391

Quote:

---

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

---

post 395

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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



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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedser

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

---

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

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

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

Get a life lads !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by co. down green

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

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

Get a life lads !!

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Predator

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

---

Probably an executive decision :)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/orange.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny Invincible

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Third policeman

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

---

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

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

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