Some lad just posted something over on P.ie and my brain has nearly melted trying to reply. I have given up.
Printable View
Some lad just posted something over on P.ie and my brain has nearly melted trying to reply. I have given up.
Sports News Ireland wrote a piece about what I'd written: http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/soccer_irish/35535/
Summarises the issues quite well - much better than my natural weakness for verbosity would ever have let me - and it almost makes me sound like someone who should be taken half seriously sometimes.
Next stop the bt...
It's something I think most of us have been wondering, but it appears that Ireland's particular brand of extra-territorial nationality law isn't unique. I've come across another state that offers citizenship extra-territorially by virtue of birth alone in what is internationally-recognised as a separate and sovereign jurisdiction. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey and it confers a right to Turkish citizenship to those born there. As far as the international community is concerned, however, this territory is a 'de jure' part of the Republic of Cyprus. Interestingly though, Turkish Cypriots are entitled to play for Turkey under FIFA's rules. Kâzım Kâzım and Muzzy Izzet, for example, were able to play for Turkey in light of their Turkish Cypriot parentage.
If FIFA aren't prepared to step into a situation and introduce an exceptional set of territorial criteria where they'd be going with the tide of international opinion, one must ask why they would step into the Irish situation and force through some unique set of rules where they'd be going against international opinion just because some disgruntled, stuck-in-the-mud NI fans are throwing their toys out of the pram?
My discovery came in light of having read through half a thread on the issue on IrishLeagueSupporters.com last night that I'd seen recorded as a source of origin for quite a few who'd visited my piece. To my surprise, the discussion on the matter was at a similarly advanced stage to what it's at here and a few posters even suspected me, as the author of the piece, of having read through that topic before writing it, ha, but I wasn't even aware of the forum's existence until yesterday evening. I did see a few posters on there who I'd be pretty certain are also on here, so that probably led to a semi-crossover of ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
On the basis of your input here, rather hiding your light under the proverbial bushel there, DI.
I see one poster, in what appears to be a fit of dogged contrarianism, has criticised the article after it was described as being well-informed and researched:
Quote:
It's neither "informed" or "well researched" and no amount of self promotion to the contrary is fooling anyone.
He's wrong on a few accounts. Forgive my personal bias, but that's simply an outrageous comment. Over the past few years, I've gone to quite an effort to ensure I am as knowledgeable as I can be on this issue and I don't think anyone could seriously dismiss the piece as providing an ill-informed analysis of the situation. My current understanding has encompassed an ungodly amount of research, within which I would also include the various and significant contributions from myself and others over time on this forum. Neither am I engaging in self-promotion on OWC.
I assume he's accusing me of being this 'EdwardT' to whom he immediately responds after 'EdwardT' states:
I'm guessing 'EdwardT' is an undercover agent from here, because it certainly isn't me.Quote:
I don't think anyone has addressed any of the substantive points in it. In fairness, its certainly the most informed and well researched piece on the subject. It looks like some media outlets have even got hold of it.
http://www.sportsnewsireland.com/soccer_irish/35535/
From my experience on OWC, that chap comes across as very irreconcilable. I think he was partly behind that ludicrous 'Open Letter' and petition campaign. His comments on your article are petty and childish - his first criticism was against the format of the greenscene article, because, well, he obviously had nothing important to say about the content. How could he?
I was just looking at this bit again on the FAI's website and the wording still puzzles me somewhat:
"The decade of the 1950s marked the resolution of the thorny issue of dual qualification of players born on the island of Ireland and also the intervention of FIFA to apply an official designation to the two associations governing football on the island.Maybe someone could clarify what is meant by the last paragraph. I know it was discussed a bit before and the conclusion was drawn that it was referring to the IFA, but I can't put my finger on where exactly right now. I have to assume it is referring to the IFA, as otherwise it would contradict the evidence all of FIFA, the IFA and the FAI submitted to CAS, but is there an error in there? Should it not say the following?:
The Irish Football Association in Belfast continued to select players from the south for their international teams in the years after the War, a policy that was not shared by the football authorities in Dublin with just one exception.
The Football Association in Dublin selected four Northern Ireland players in a squad that travelled to play Portugal and Spain in the Summer of 1946 in Ireland's first two international matches after the War.
The reasons why they departed from their stated policy of confining selection to those players born in the Republic have never been satisfactorily explained but the licence to look beyond the political boundary separating the North from the Republic for team selections was revoked in 1950."
"The reasons why they [the IFA] departed from their stated policy of confining selection to those players born in the [north] have never been satisfactorily explained..."
Or can confining your selection to a certain set of players mean that you're limiting your selection to players outside of that set? I generally thought it meant you'd be limiting your selection to players within, rather than outside, some limit or boundary, no? Does that make sense? For example, if you're asked to select a few cards from a pack but to confine your selection to red cards, wouldn't that be an instruction to limit your selection and choose from just hearts and diamonds rather than an instruction to limit your selection to cards of a black suit?
Not at all Danny, consider the earlier line,Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
'a policy that was not shared by the football authorities in Dublin with just one exception'.
To my understanding, the whole piece you quote from the FAI website makes consistent sense.
Go back to the FAI's submissions to CASQuote:
Or can confining your selection to a certain set of players mean that you're limiting your selection to players outside of that set? I generally thought it meant you'd be limiting your selection to players within, rather than outside, some limit or boundary, no? Does that make sense? For example, if you're asked to select a few cards from a pack but to confine your selection to red cards, wouldn't that be an instruction to limit your selection and choose from just hearts and diamonds rather than an instruction to limit your selection to cards of a black suit?
CAS 2010/A/2071 IFA v/ FAI, Kearns & FIFA - Page 6
The so-called “1950 FIFA Ruling” and the alleged subsequent accord between the associations do not exist, at least not in the terms asserted by the IFA. Up until 1950, both associations claimed to govern all football in Ireland and to be entitled to choose players from throughout the island, without any reference to their geographical location. In the beginning of the 1950’s, the two associations accepted that they could no longer regard all players on the island as being under their jurisdiction and agreed that the IFA was the governing body of football in Northern Ireland and the FAI in the Republic of Ireland. In any event, there was no discussion about the status of Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its representative teams, whether they were living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.
- “Any rule or ruling from 1950, or thereafter, was in any case replaced by the adoption of Articles 15 to 18 of the FIFA Regulations, which were created to govern the issue of eligibility and nationality in a comprehensive manner” (answer, page 17, par. 51).
CAS upheld this submission.
I've just read this for the first time. To me it is referring to the FAI and it follows from the previous paragraph which refers to the one departure in the FAI selection policy in 1946 in selecting 4 Northerners to play Portugal and Spain. Tis strange as it appears to be written by a neutral/outsider.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
If it's referring to the FAI, then when did they state a policy of confining selection to just players born in the Republic? And wouldn't that have implicitly ruled out northern-born Irish nationals from lining out for the FAI?
It appears to be a badly written piece. I've just had a look on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Ir...al_footballersQuote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Going from the wiki on dual Irish internationals I can only see 11 Northern born players who represented the FAI. 6 of these were dual internationals and 5 represented only the FAI.
The first was Harry Chatton who was born in Belfast. He made his last IFA appearance in 1925 and made his debut for the FAI aged 32 in 1931.
In 1936 and 1937 6 Northern born players were selected for the FAI. They were Hugh Connolly, Davy Jordan, John Feenan, Mick Hoy, Tommy Donnelly and Jackie Brown. Of these only Jackie Brown had played for the IFA.
From Jackie Brown's entry:
"Brown was one of several players born in Northern Ireland who benefited from the FAI’s attempts to establish their all-Ireland influence. He was first called up by the FAI for a game against Germany on 17 October 1936 but he was injured at the time. In May 1937 the FAI organised a European tour with a squad that included Brown and two other Northerners, Davy Jordan and John Feenan. Brown made his debut for the FAI XI on 17 May in a 1–0 win against Switzerland. A week later, on 23 May, he scored the second goal as the FAI XI defeated France 2–0. This would prove to be his last appearance for the FAI XI. However in May 1938, for another European tour, the FAI once again called up Brown, together with two other Northerners, Harry Baird and Walter McMillen. However this time the IFA objected and all three players received telegrams from the English FA ordering them not to accept the offer on the grounds they were not born in the Irish Free State."
From Harry Baird's entry:
"In May 1938, Baird, together with Jackie Brown and Walter McMillen, was one of three Northern Ireland-born players called up by the FAI XI to play in two friendlies against Czechoslovakia and Poland. However the IFA objected and Baird subsequently received a telegram from the English FA ordering him not to accept the offer on the grounds he was not born in the Irish Free State. Baird was bitterly disappointed at missing the chance of an international debut and was keen to play for financial reasons as much as anything. He was neutral about the dispute and was willing to play for either team. However facing suspension from the English FA, he eventually declined the FAI offer."
This push of 1936-1937 was an attempt to establish the FAI as an all-Ireland association. The timing might have something to do with the December 1937 constitution of Ireland?
There were then the 4 Northern born dual-internationals who played for the FAI on the Iberian tour of 1946. They were Jimmy McAlinden, Billy McMillan, Jackie Vernon and Paddy Sloan.
So it seems as if the FAI made 2 pushes to select Northern born players. One in 1936/37 and one in 1946. The appeal for the dual internationals was to play 'home internationals' for the IFA and to play against european opposition for the FAI. The IFA and the FA disputed the FAI's right to select Northern born players while the IFA freely picked anyone from Ireland.
I have no idea when the FAI stated any 26 county born only policy. After 1950 didn't the IFA stick to the 6 counties and the FAI stick to the 26. Was Kernaghan the next non 26 county linked player to play for the FAI?
P.S. Was Shay Brennan the first non-Ireland born or just the first english born to play for Ireland? This didn't happen until 1965.
I think Kernaghan would have been the next player to play for us through his northern roots, yeah.
I see the piece I wrote got a mention by Chris Donnelly on Slugger: http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/...y-hostilities/
I'd have to agree that this ought to be the closing of the final chapter. It would be a bit rich for the IFA to prolong the farce. Hopefully, NI fans can follow suit and acknowledge the reality of the consociational, bi-communal society in which they live.Quote:
A number of sure signs that the football eligibility row has been permanently resolved could be detected in recent weeks. Firstly, there was the news that Northern Ireland manager, Nigel Worthington, was actively pursuing former Republic of Ireland international, Alex Bruce, as a prospective Northern Ireland international for the future.
...
Secondly, the news that Sinn Fein’s DCAL Minister has signalled her willingness to attend a Northern Ireland international fixture at Windsor Park indicates that Sinn Fein leaders are clearly of the belief that the eligibility row is over.
You could be right. For some reason, I though it was Charlie Gallagher who won the European Cup with Celtic in 1967, but it appears he was the first Scottish-born player to play for Ireland. He was the son of Donegal parents and made his debut for us away to Turkey in February of 1967.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irwin3
The IFA, yes, probably? The rest, well some (a majority I reckon), to put it politely, doubtful.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
By the way, this is only something I realised recently through research I was doing when writing the eligibility piece, but, to the best of my knowledge, it was only after the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956 that Irish citizenship was offered to those born in the north. Likewise, it was only after this date that citizenship was conferred to the sons and daughters born of Irish citizens outside Ireland.
Prior to their amendment post-Good Friday Agreement, articles 2 and 3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann didn't actually make specific reference to the citizenship rights of those born in the north, or anyone for that matter:
And from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_nationality_lawQuote:
2. The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.
3. Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.
I'm not so sure I agree with what Ó Caoindealbháin is purported to be saying, mind; that the legislation "conferred", or "inflicted", as Brookeborough described it, Irish citizenship upon those born in the north. To confer something, especially its use in the context above, possibly implies automaticity or a lack of choice and it wasn't being forced upon anybody who didn't want it. If you have a read of the 1956 Act, you'll see that section 7 states:Quote:
The 1937 Constitution
...
With regard to Northern Ireland, despite the irredentist nature and rhetorical claims of articles 2 and 3 of the new constitution, the compatibility of Irish citizenship law with the state’s boundaries remained unaltered.
Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956
In 1956, the Irish parliament enacted the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. This Act repealed the 1935 Act and remains, although heavily amended, the basis of Irish citizenship law. This act, according to Ó Caoindealbháin, altered radically the treatment of Northern Ireland residents in Irish citizenship law. With the enactment of the Republic of Ireland Act in 1948, and the subsequent passage of the Ireland Act by the British government in 1949, the state’s constitutional independence was assured, facilitating the resolution of the unsatisfactory position from an Irish nationalist perspective whereby births in Northern Ireland were assimilated to “foreign” births. The Irish government was explicit in its aim to amend this situation, seeking to extend citizenship as widely as possible to Northern Ireland, as well as to Irish emigrants and their descendants abroad.
The Act therefore provided for Irish citizenship for anyone born in the island of Ireland whether before or after independence. The only limitations to which were that anyone born in Northern Ireland was not automatically an Irish citizen but entitled to be an Irish citizen and, that a child of someone entitled to diplomatic immunity in the state would not become an Irish citizen. The Act also provided for open-ended citizenship by descent and for citizenship by registration for the wives (but not husbands) of Irish citizens.
The treatment of Northern Ireland residents in these sections had considerable significance for the state’s territorial boundaries, given that their “sensational effect … was to confer, in the eyes of Irish law, citizenship on the vast majority of the Northern Ireland population”.[42] The compatibility of this innovation with international law, according to Ó Caoindealbháin was dubious, "given its attempt to regulate the citizenship of an external territory ... In seeking to extend jus soli citizenship beyond the state’s jurisdiction, the 1956 Act openly sought to subvert the territorial boundary between North and South". The implications of the Act were readily recognised in Northern Ireland, with Lord Brookeborough tabling a motion in the Parliament of Northern Ireland repudiating “the gratuitous attempt … to inflict unwanted Irish Republican nationality upon the people of Northern Ireland”.
Nevertheless, Irish citizenship continued to be extended to the inhabitants of Northern Ireland for over 40 years, representing, according to Ó Caoindealbháin, "one of the few practical expressions of the Irish state’s irredentism." Ó Caoindealbháin concludes, however, that the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 altered significantly the territorial implications of Irish citizenship law, if somewhat ambiguously, via two key provisions: the renunciation of the constitutional territorial claim over Northern Ireland, and the recognition of “the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both, as they may so choose”, and that “their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments".
In regard to international law, Ó Caoindealbháin states that, although it is the attempt to confer citizenship extra-territorially without the agreement of the state affected that represents a breach of international law (not the actual extension), the 1956 Act "co-exists uneasily with the terms of the Agreement, and, by extension, the official acceptance by the Irish state of the current border. While the Agreement recognises that Irish citizenship is the birthright of those born in Northern Ireland, it makes clear that its acceptance is a matter of individual choice. In contrast, the 1956 Act continues to extend citizenship automatically in the majority of cases, thereby, in legal effect, conflicting with the agreed status of the border and the principle of consent".
I would have thought section 7 precluded the possibility of any automatic conferral of citizenship upon someone who'd be unlikely to want it, leaving a declaration of Irish citizenship as a matter of choice or entitlement to those born in the north to parents who were not Irish citizensQuote:
Irish citizenship by birth or descent.
6.—(1) Every person born in Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth.
(2) Every person is an Irish citizen if his father or mother was an Irish citizen at the time of that person's birth or becomes an Irish citizen under subsection (1) or would be an Irish citizen under that subsection if alive at the passing of this Act.
(3) In the case of a person born before the passing of this Act, subsection (2) applies from the date of its passing. In every other case, it applies from birth.
(4) A person born before the passing of this Act whose father or mother is an Irish citizen under subsection (2), or would be if alive at its passing, shall be an Irish citizen from the date of its passing.
(5) Subsection (1) shall not confer Irish citizenship on the child of an alien who, at the time of the child's birth, is entitled to diplomatic immunity in the State.
Formalities to be complied with in certain cases.
7.—(1) Pending the re-integration of the national territory, subsection (1) of section 6 shall not apply to a person, not otherwise an Irish citizen, born in Northern Ireland on or after the 6th December, 1922, unless, in the prescribed manner, that person, if of full age, declares himself to be an Irish citizen or, if he is not of full age, his parent or guardian declares him to be an Irish citizen. In any such case, the subsection shall be deemed to apply to him from birth.
...
1946 according to the documents filed to the CAS. The FAI requested from FIFA that players born in the South could not be selected for any other association.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
That is the 'stated policy' as referred to on the FAI's website, with which there was one exception for the Iberian tour.
But the 'FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its representative teams, whether they were living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere'
It's not so complicated, is it ?
Alex Bruce has switched to NI and good luck to him.
Very interesting Danny. Reading the last bolded part makes me wonder about the status of those born prior to 1922 in the years before this act of 1956. As far as I'm aware the 11 Northern born players who played for the FAI in the 30's and 40's were all born before 1922. I presume both associations just assumed they were Irish and eligible for their teams.
So were the 'missing years' of not selecting Northern born players anything to do with this act affecting the legality of these players citizenships.
We have the 11 players born before 1922 the last of whom played in 1946.
We have this 1956 act.
We then have english/scottish born players being selected in 1965/1967 - .
Kernaghan is presumably the next Northern born player to be selected. He was born in 1967.
Interesting stuff.
My own thoughts on why northern-born players suddenly decided to declare for the FAI around the mid-to-late 1990s (albeit in relatively small numbers on a yearly basis, and still so, to be honest) after no movement at all for the previous decades is as follows. Although I don't believe the Good Friday Agreement changed anything of legal substance as regards the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for the FAI, I suspect its signing and the period of recognition, acceptance, reconciliation, sugar and spice and all things nice leading up to it (and since) may well have changed mindsets whereby nationalists realised or became more aware, confident, comfortable and in tune with the idea that they didn't actually have to play for a British entity if they didn't want to. Admittedly, that's just speculation on my part, but I'm attempting to understand and rationalise why switches weren't in greater number when you might have expected sectarian and political tensions to be more significant. A gentleman's agreement clearly wasn't the reason because it's pretty apparent that one didn't exist.
Likewise, with any potential accusations of irredentism finally off their backs and looking less and less valid as far as the international community or international law were concerned, the FAI could get on with being less reluctant to accept northern players (in saying that, I don't know if they turned down approaches prior to Kernaghan or the likes of Ger Crossley; maybe someone could shed light?), and possibly even offering it as a serious option without the fear of a political stir, or what might have been a much worse political stir than the one the switches have actually caused. And then, it appears, the IFA intervened in 1999 when Boyce and O'Byrne met where the FAI voluntarily agreed not to make contact with players unless they volunteered their intentions first, although awareness of the option open to northern-born Irish nationals clearly remained, and especially in Derry where - exceptions like James McClean aside - the general tendency appeared and appears to be for Derry City's Derry-born players to play for the FAI. When Gibson decided to switch and the IFA made such a hoo-ha about it, I feel they shot themselves in the foot by further publicising - or advertising even - an option open to Irish nationals in the north. Most people still seem to be of the impression that Gibson was the first NI-born player to play for the FAI in modern times, which goes to show how little awareness of northern-born players playing for Ireland there was before the IFA kicked up the storm. The brouhaha has also had the effect of alienating nationalists, which has only driven them further away from the IFA and closer to the FAI. It has made the IFA appear hostile to nationalist interests expressions of identity. The real mystery is what possessed the IFA to believe the rules as they currently stand applied any differently to how they had done when they'd received clarification from FIFA in 1994 and acknowledged the right of northern-born Irish nationals to declare for the FAI in 1999.
I read on a forum, so not sure of its veracity, that Neil Lennon would rather have played for the south had he, in his own words, had the choice. He obviously did have a choice as he began playing for NI around the same time as Kernaghan declared for us, to the best of my knowledge. Clearly, however, if the above is true, he was not in the know or made aware of the option open to him. I've read similar talk about Pat Jennings.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, speculation, conjecture or whatever you want to call it, but it's an attempt at an explanation anyway.
But whose stated policy was it? The FAI's or the IFA's? According to CAS, as you mention, FIFA issued two dictats around 1950 only effective upon the IFA as regards confining player selection to their own territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I don't understand how the FAI selecting northern-born players for the Iberian tour goes against a "policy" of theirs that apparently stated that players from the south could not play for any other country. The two aren't related, are they? Am I missing something or has this just turned my head into mush? :confused:
Unrelated somewhat, this, but can anyone confirm if Mauro Camoranesi qualified to play for Italy through Italy-born grandparents or an Italy-born great-grandparent, as his Wikipedia states? It could have interesting implications for the application and interpretation of article 15. There's a guy here claiming that the great-grandparent claim isn't actually true in response to a question I asked in order to provoke further discussion: http://socqer.com/questions/553/unde...lay-for-italy/
My thinking is that if Camoranesi qualified by virtue of a great-grandfather, then he must have qualified via article 15 as he would not otherwise satisfy the sub-criteria of article 17. This, in turn, would surely imply that article 15 could be interpreted as a "granny rule" or even a "great-granny rule", maybe leaving open a possibility of, say, third, fourth or fifth generation Irish players being eligible to play for Ireland just so long as their citizenship was inherited along the lineage in line with the procedural requirements of Irish nationality law.
You were mentioned here Danny:
http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/01/...y-hostilities/
Also, a commenter, Boycethevoice, linked to the GS version here:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-16018801.html
The author on the FAI site wrote that the FAI went against their stated policy and selected 4 from the North for their Iberian tour in 1948?.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
By that, we take it that the author interpreted the FAI request to FIFA in 1946 as a stated policy.
But the FAI did not have a stated policy. The author got things slightly awry.
That's not a big deal is it?
The FAI's submission to the CAS on the matter is clear and consistent with FAI actions through that period and directly upheld with the CAS reference to it.
The comment is "well worth the read"Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaFox
Which means - it's a real read but worth it.
I see, 'tis an error in interpretation then from whoever edited the history section? Not a big deal. It just puzzled me as it didn't add up with what CAS found. You'd think someone would correct it.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
From that Slugger blog
'This news has been apparently confirmed by the BBC tonight, indicating that Nigel Worthington and the IFA have effectively signalled the end of hostilities regarding the eligibility affair. The IFA were already facing the charge of hypocrisy regarding their opposition to northerners opting to leave the IFA structures to represent the Republic of Ireland'.
The IFA have decommissioned dogma and hypocrisy?
This is a cunning cover-up.
I want independent confirmation. Set up an Independent Monitoring Commission.
Yes Danny, we all know you're that man.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I don't know about Camoranesi specifically but I know from Italian-American friends that Italian citizenship is even more accessible than ours. You can get citizenship from as far back as a great-grandparent having citizenship (as opposed to being born there).Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
That's not how some of the North's fans see it....judging by some of the negative stuff posted on forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelys Guitar
But difficult to link to, unless you're actually a member.
Having read the odd tome on Lennon and having talked to his cousin, despite his heritage and where he was brought up, at that time in his career as he had been in the minds of the IFA youth and had experienced their junior set-up was why he eventually why he went onto play for the North.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
But became a focus for dissent from some of their more extreme fans and his eventual international retirement came, once he moved to Celtic.
So no change there?
We can only surmise how he and Jennings and others might have reacted now....
The door is thankfully more open than it was even a decade ago.
Camoranesi qualified for Italy under the rules of eligibility that existed at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
He even would have qualified under the Annex addendum 901 that came into existence some 6 months after he declared for Italy, under the 2 year residency criteria.
I'd imagine Camoranesi would still have qualified under the current rules, however, regardless of whether or not he'd spent any time residing in Italy. I'm basing this supposition on the example of Thiago Motta. Motta is another oriondo who declared for Italy earlier this year, after having played for Brazil below senior level earlier in his career. He is reported to have qualified via an Italian great-grandfather. Motta was apparently born in Brazil to Brazil-born parents of Brazil-born parents themselves (although I see some sources claim he had an Italian paternal grandparent, whilst his Wikipedia - not fully sourced - claims he had Italian grandparents on both his maternal and paternal sides). A few sources mention what appears to be a very specific story (thus, more likely to be the accurate version, perhaps?) about how his Italian citizenship was inherited from an Italian great-grandfather, Fortunato Fogagnolo, who had emigrated to Brazil from Italy in 1897. Under the current rules, Motta would not have qualified via the current 5-year residency criterion as he only moved to Genoa in 2008, so if he indeed qualified through this great-grandfather, it would presumably leave article 15 open to being interpreted as a "granny rule", or a "great-granny rule" even, as article 17 makes no provision for any player qualifying via a generation beyond grand-parentage.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
As for that "odd" bit on the FAI's history webpage, I'm thinking it might actually be entirely correct after all having had a better think about it and considering everything. Irish citizenship, as offered by the Irish state, only became available extra-territorially to those born outside of Ireland to Irish citizens and those born in the north since 1956 after the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (not that the passing of this legislation had anything to do with the footballing situation on the island, à la what happened in Qatar; FIFA have had over half a century to counteract its effect besides if they did actually have an issue with it). If the FAI had, at any date prior to this, accepted that the association's jurisdiction did not include the whole of the island, which, of course, it did in 1950 (or possibly as far back as 1946?), it meant that it was accepting that players born in the IFA's jurisdiction were, for then, off-limits to its selection. Of course, that's not to say that the future status of Irish nationals, regardless of where they were born, was ever discussed or ruled upon by anyone. Once those in the north would have become entitled to Irish citizenship in 1956, they'd have been entitled as "subjects of the country they represent" (as per the then-"Art. 21 al. 2 of the Regulations of the F.I.F.A.", as outlined by the FIFA General Secretary, Ivo Shricker, on the 18th of October, 1946 and quoted by CAS) to play for the FAI so long as they effected their right to citizenship, regardless of whether they were born outside the FAI's territory or not. I feel this would be consistent with the wording of the text on the FAI's history webpage and the wording of the association's submission to CAS. Ultimately, it doesn't make any difference to the current situation as it would also be consistent with the findings of CAS, but it just clarifies things somewhat or clears things up in my own mind at least.
The FAI was founded as an All-Ireland Association but was admitted to FIFA in the 1920's as the FAIFS (Football Association of the Irish Free State). A condition of entry to FIFA was that the FAIFS confine its activities to the Free State. For example the Falls District League was affiliated to the FAI but once the FAI was admitted to FIFA as the FAIFS the Falls District League came under the "authority" of the IFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
In the mid 1930's the FAIFS reverted back to its original name of the FAI and reverted back to its original brief as an All-Ireland Association.
The sentence you highlight from the FAI's history section is inaccurate as (a) there was no Republic at the time and (b) the change in selection policy is very much explainable as the FAIFS was no more.
Then you should have just asked about Motta :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It's reported that Motta has always held Italian citizenship and UEFA report that he has an Italian grandfather. The grandfather link means he is article 17 compliant.
I'm aware the FAI split from the IFA in order to replace it as an all-island body rather than merely act as an off-shoot in governing football in the newly-established Irish Free State. Bunreacht na hÉireann would have replaced the 1922 Constitution of Saorstát Eireann in 1937 and the FAI readopted its current name in 1936 in anticipation of the state's name-change. The state was formally recognised as a republic (in description rather than title; the official name of the state remains Ireland in English, despite what many seem to believe) in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 that came into force in early 1949. After the IFA joined FIFA in 1946, is it more or less correct to say that the FAI accepted its jurisdiction as the 26-county state that would be formally acknowledged as a republic in 1949? In other words, is there anything in my above analysis which you'd dispute or with which you'd take issue bar not having corrected the FAI's premature reference to "the Republic"?Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Ha, indeed. I only came across the example of Motta since I discussed Camoranesi. I wonder is this Fogagnolo actually a grandparent then, although his dates would suggest not as they place about 85 years between him being 20 in 1897 and Motta being born in 1982, which seems like an awful lot of time. Either he or Motta's own father, or both even, must have been exceptionally old when their next generation came along. Ultimately, Motta doesn't really provide any conclusion either though, or can we still assume that those born outside of Italy whose only link is an Italian-born great-grandparent would actually qualify under article 15?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I see another poster called 'the_hawk' has similar to say in response to a previous poster's suggestion that someone try and compile a response to at least some of the points I've raised:Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
Maybe a more fitting username would be 'the_osterich'.Quote:
That would imply there's actually some merit to the article to make it worth countering, meanwhile anyone with have a brain could tell for themselves its all ill-informed rambling & treat it with the contempt it deserves by ignoring it.
http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/ima...ad-in-sand.jpg
Yep, you need evidence for some conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It would be irrational to assume that the theory is true when there is no evidence to support it.Quote:
or can we still assume that those born outside of Italy whose only link is an Italian-born great-grandparent would actually qualify under article 15?
That response by the_hawk beggars belief. It's actually upsetting that someone could think like that.
I appeal to OWC users here such as NB and/or GR to put him right on behalf of all sane individuals with an interest in the topic. It is anything but ill-informed rambling deserving of contempt. I'm sure Danny will be the first to admit any inaccuracy if any was confirmed, and he'd be very happy to respond to any suspicion of inaccuracy.
That's true, although having had a semi-cursory look at the nature of Italian nationality law in relation those who acquire it through jure sanguinis, it would seem to amount to a permanent nationality not dependent on residence just so long as all ancestors along the lineage never renounced their respective rights to Italian citizenship. That would imply it is a birthright, possibly?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I agree, but that would subtract from the farcical element. Where's EalingGreen gone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88