Spot on, Danny.
The only downside will be GR's doubtless uber long-winded and pompous response....
And based on the initial 'response' below, witless besides of course, being geographically challenged!
Printable View
Spot on, Danny.
The only downside will be GR's doubtless uber long-winded and pompous response....
And based on the initial 'response' below, witless besides of course, being geographically challenged!
Up yer bum, English Bhoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
A constitution does not make people feel something that they are already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
The relevance of the constitution is that it recognises and legally guarantees the validity of the identities. The relevance of the GFA is that the identities are cemented with the principle of dual full citizenship from birth in the North, established as a fundamental constitutional right in the North and democratically accepted as so by the voters in the North.
Another relevance of the GFA is that the citizenship laws were changed in the South and are applied equally over the whole Island.
In other words, an established legal and social harmony with FIFA eligibility statute 15.
Or argue for Britain...or both Ireland and Britain....Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Any idea what time we'll have some white smoke? Incidently, might just be lazy reporting but, a few articles I've been scanning start with something along the lines of. "IFA officials travel to Lausanne today..." "Daniel Kearns travels to Lausanne today..." etc. Unless this thing is on after lunch -shoudn't they have travelled yesterday? Otherwise I do hope someone brought a flask of tea and some corn beef sandwiches ...though I doubt that many Clare folk work for the IFA.
Cliftonville were playing at Donegal Celtics ground, which is right beside Lenadoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
I wouldn't go into Lenadoon with a squad of Marines ffs.
I've never had a problem parking at any IL grounds, but Donegal Celtic is one I would never drive to.
What irritates me about much of the hysteria on OWC is this assumption that, should we lose a few players, the team will wither away. Rowan seems to be drawing on it. There are plenty of European countries with a smaller playing pool than even purely unionist NI. And they do OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
My pleasure, although of course I've always been onside. I've always been from Northern Ireland and thus Irish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Invincible
We're both right, I think, if slightly at cross-purposes. I said "it looks odd that the Republic will happily offer citizenship to pretty much everyone in NI, but won't automatically do so for everyone born in the South". I was distinguishing between people like me (lifelong Irish, eligible for but uninterested in a RoI passport), and kids born in the South to parents determined to make a life there. Who won't be eligible. Of course I accept that kids born in NI to non-Irish parents may not be eligible either.Quote:
I think you're mistaken or else my understanding of the application of Irish citizenship law throughout the whole island is incorrect
Thanks for the link to the Chen case.
If the latter, that does reassure my concern, thanks.Quote:
In such an instance, Irish citizenship can be conferred by the Minister for Justice, or possibly it has automatic application from birth; not completely certain
Pretty much qualified there, Danny. Everything trivial contradicted by the one thing that's important, basically. Of course it's a perfectly legitimate aspiration, like Shay Given or Aaron Hughes lifting the cup at Euro 2012. But it isn't realistically going to happen.Quote:
Pretty much every act and declaration by the British government in the recent contemporary past, bar voluntarily relinquishing the union with Northern Ireland, has more or less vindicated the notion that a united Ireland is a perfectly legitimate aspiration
It had 50 years of devolution/ autononomy, then 30 of ongoing violence. The latter would probably have had a 'place apart' effect even if the former hadn't happened. Now, we've got devolution again- and the Scots and Welsh have it too. Theoretically, Scotland could vote itself out of the union in the near future. We all know this is very unlikely to happen. Voters will happily elect the SNP to Holyrood, then drop them in every Westminster election. The legal pathway you mention will only be relevant if nationalistsQuote:
Northern Ireland certainly is no longer considered an intrinsic constituent part of the UK like, say, England or Scotland are - if it ever was at all, always having been a bit of a constitutional anomaly within the UK - and a legal pathway is in place for its departing from the union
a) get significantly more than 50% in an election (or pass the threshold in two or three). Getting 50.1% in one poll not enough, as it might easily fall to 49.9% weeks or months later
b) persuade the South to take you on. Bit of a leap that, when they've been standing by for decades without actually doing anything about it. If they had, Derry Cityside or Newry could have been in the Republic decades ago
c) get enthusistic, unquestioning agreement from unionists. Instead of, say, a suggestion to limited re-partition.
If FIFA replaced their grandparentage rule with one only referring parents, it would have a similar effect. Plenty of proud RoI and NI internationals wouldn't have been allowed to play, but who says that would have denied them any part of their proud patriotism? Similarly Pat Jennings, Martin O'Neill, Alan Kernaghan weren't any less able to enjoy their identity simply by playing for an international side that wouldn't ncessarily have been their first choice. So I think you're exaggerating a bit, although admittedly the aggressive atitude taken by the IFA and many NI fans may go some way to explain this.Quote:
I mean, telling an Irish national that he shouldn't be allowed to represent his country in the sporting sphere is kind of denying him his national identity
No need to be picky. My point was that providing those documents, rights and support costs very little. My parents worked for the Brit Foreign Office abroad for years and providing consular support to tourists who'd lost their passports or money was a very minor sideline. Following directly from that, offering the service doesn't cost much more for six million people in Ireland than it does for four. Why doesn't the Dublin government give the passport-holders a vote too for a small fee: then we could have an interesting battle for the last seat in Diaspora North-east...Quote:
If I wanted to be picky, I could point out that Irish nationality entitles those living outside the state in possession of it to an Irish passport - and those rights that come with possessing a passport - as well as diplomatic support from Irish embassies or consulates abroad. So, something of substance at least beyond symbolic recognition
Broadly agreed. Of course there was gerrymandering as precisely defined in NI anyway (eg in Derry). You can see how the name got applied retrospectively to partition of the island as a whole. And why many people on the more moderate branches of nationalism use it as AB does.Quote:
Beyond the morality of the partition of Ireland, I think it's clear that, while 'ArdeeBhoy' might be using "gerrymandering" in a technically incorrect context, he's treating it as being synonymous with the idea of manufacturing a state - like how an electoral boundary might be manipulated to favour a certain group over another - as big as it possibly could have been while at the same time ensuring a secure population bias in favour of as many Irish unionists as possible for the foreseeable future
Disagree with the latter point. Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area. Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.Quote:
Any bigger and the population balance would have been tipped in favour of nationalists/Catholics; any smaller and it would have struggled to sustain itself and left a lot more disgruntled unionists
I recognise the importance of the GFA, it's just rather less relevant- irrelevant- to my identity than others'.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The hundreds of FC United fans over from England seemed to have a great day out at the DC's Suffolk Road groundQuote:
Originally Posted by awec
A delayed response to this as I was unfortunately due back on planet earth for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Firstly, I'll refer to "Ireland" as much and as often as I like, whether we are playing Northern Ireland or otherwise. No Ireland fans refer to themsleves as "ROI". We are identified by countries fans the world over as Ireland. If this irritates you - get a life. I'm not going to abandon what I call my country - just to comply with your specific world view.
I was not having a dig at you or your team in my original post - any offence taken could be put down to paranoia, ignorance/laziness on your part.
Who really gives a f*ck what the tournament is called anyway?? You obviously knew what I was referring to. Why get hung up on overly officious titles of tournaments when it was apparent what I was talking about???
Didn't realise it wasn't in Solitude. Although I suspect you'd be safer going to DC without a squad of marines than with one.Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
I actually did drive there in 1990 when we played DC in a pre-season friendly. Left the car there overnight as well having
stayed in the Social Club until closing time (which was sometime after it got bright the following morning).
Heh. As you probably know, a lot of us up here think as EG does, although we wouldn't be brave enough to make an issue of it on foot.ie. That is, we just get mildly irritated at people equating the Republic with all of Ireland. It's pretty similar to others saying 'England' when they mean 'Britain'. In most cases it's just common use and no wind-up is intended, but there you go.
Echoing Wolfie's point, in most of the rest of the World it's just Ireland. The more so since Northern Ireland isn't a Worldwide news story any more. But of course you do something because it suits you, not dependent on what foreigners think. But recently, on another board, Wolfie's point was made by a Belgian guy. He lives in Nivelles, a suburban town near Brussels. An area in which many cities and villages- and even some streets in central Brussels- have two or three names.
Without wanting to lapse too far into whataboutery, earlier in the thread I found myself typing 'Home Internationals', before correcting. Clearly that would be seen as a wind-up, ditto the 'British Lions' in rugby union. And at least one prominent poster on this thread gets annoyed at references to 'the South', even though he must realise it's widely used in Northern Ireland.
I like to think of it like Virginia and West Virginia. The original state got to keep its name and the breakaway territory adopted a qualifier.
Aye, like the Irish League and the LoI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
...don't use that phrase on this thread! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Article in full..Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
Quote:
IFA TAKE ON THE BOSS
IFA in Lausanne to tackle FIFA chief over player eligibility row
THIS is it ...
The last throw of the dice.
No more chances, no more appeals.
The Irish Football Association must tomorrow convince the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne that the most powerful man in football, FIFA President Sepp Blatter, was wrong to support the Republic in the eligibility row concerning a Northern Ireland-born player.
An IFA delegation led by Chief Executive Patrick Nelson, President Raymond Kennedy and two lawyers will aim to prove FIFA are going against their own rules and statutes by allowing the Football Association of Ireland to select players born in Northern Ireland who have no affiliation with the Republic.
Under FIFA statutes a player can only perform for a country if he is born in that particular nation or his parents/grandparents come from that country or if he has lived for two years continuously on the territory of the relevant association.
However 16 months ago, while at a FIFA conference at the Slieve Donard hotel in Newcastle, Co Down, Blatter stunned Irish FA chiefs and Northern Ireland fans by insisting the Republic is entitled to select any player born in Northern Ireland who holds an Irish passport due to the Good Friday Agreement.
This ruling by Blatter, it seems, totally flies in the face of his and FIFA’s own rules.
While the FAI celebrated what they believed was victory in the case, the IFA took advice before deciding to battle FIFA head-on at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.
The Irish FA in recent years have lost three players — Darron Gibson, Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy — to the Republic, despite these young guns being born in Northern Ireland and playing for IFA under-age sides.
While the IFA has no major objections with Duffy and Wilson changing allegiance as they qualify through the parent/grandparent rule, those in power at Windsor Avenue believe FIFA, in line with their statutes, should have stopped the FAI from selecting Londonderry-born Gibson, as he has no family connections with the Republic.
The IFA fear Northern Ireland could lose more young players to the FAI this way and so, after failing with FIFA, they feel they were left with no option but to file their submission with CAS.
Northern Ireland manager Nigel Worthington is tired of losing players to the Republic who have come through the IFA under-age system and he has called for “common sense” to prevail in Lausanne.
“We have got to be positive and believe that the CAS will find in our favour,” says Worthington.
“I see it as a black and white decision. There can no longer be any ‘ifs, buts or maybes’. That is not good for the Association and those coaches working with young players and selecting teams.
“We need to clarify the situation and I just hope common sense prevails.
“I’ve said from day one that the association is right and proper in taking the case to the CAS and trying to show FIFA the errors of their ways because no-one else is looking after us. We have to look after ourselves.
“We produced, in Darron Gibson and Shane Duffy, two very good players who will be around the top end of football for years to come. We put time and effort as an association into their international careers, as have the coaches who worked with them over the years.
“When the time comes, there is a loophole there that has been exploited and that’s not right.
“We need that dealt with firmly by people at the top end of football.
“This is similar to the ongoing row about goal-line technology. Common sense tells you FIFA should introduce goal-line technology.
“It makes sense for FIFA to bring in video goal-line technology and it makes sense for CAS to back our case.”
The Irish FA will put forward their arguments tomorrow, but a decision from CAS isn’t expected until later this week. This time, if the ruling goes against the IFA — there is no avenue for appeal. They really are at the last chance saloon...
That would be the same goal-line technology that the IFA voted against when given a chance to decide it's fate, thus consigning it to oblivion for the forseeable future aye? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Ol' Nige
The same, although I don't see the problem with Nige contradicting what some other IFA hack said at the last FIFA international board meeting. I doubt they had an earlier meeting to mandate the delegate. He may simply have expressed a personal view, or followed Onkel Sepp's lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullivinho
As Blatter seems now simply to have changed his mind under gentle pressure after the Tevez/ Neuer incidents, the foreseeable future looks unnecessarily pessimistic. You could see it trailed in the next U-20 or u-21 competition, say.
I think most people actively involved in the game support goal-line technology. It seems to mainly be technocrats and players from the good old days before there were nets in the goals who oppose it on ideological grounds.
Answering my own question -ruling not expected for several weeks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...sh/8836124.stm
This is indeed the effect of the amendment and current legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I've come across this: http://www.unhcr.ie/statelessness.htmlQuote:
If the latter, that does reassure my concern, thanks.
Not sure how recent it is, though, as no date has been provided, but it appears that the legislation as it is currently allows for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the possibility of waiving the naturalisation requirements otherwise in place when it comes to the matter of a stateless person, both 'de jure' and 'de facto'. However, it does mention:
I'm not sure how all this operates in practice. It doesn't appear, either, from that, at least, that Irish citizenship will be conferred automatically onto stateless persons. Although, the legislation, which I've decided to take a look at again, appears to contradict that notion somewhat: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/conso...dationINCA.pdfQuote:
Currently UNHCR has noted that there are no procedures in which stateless persons can have their status considered. The lack of identification impacts on stateless persons’ ability to get, for instance, stay permits, travel documents, and to make representation to the Minister to waive the naturalisation requirements as specified in Section 16 (g) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 as amended.
You'll see there that section 6 (3) states: "A person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other country."
At least if FIFA did that, it would apply evenly across the board, so I imagine any qualms with it would have less validity. If FIFA were to restrict the eligibility of certain Irish nationals by birthright whilst allowing others in possession of the exact same status to play, it would appear unfair to me in that it would impinge on a certain newly-created sub-category of Irish national by introducing an arbitrary dichotomy within a specific status of national as opposed to between certain statuses of nationals. That's the distinction.Quote:
If FIFA replaced their grandparentage rule with one only referring parents, it would have a similar effect. Plenty of proud RoI and NI internationals wouldn't have been allowed to play, but who says that would have denied them any part of their proud patriotism?
I suppose, if you were to look at it that way, it could be argued that the provision of the documents, rights and support would cost as little or as much - whatever your perspective on prudent and efficient state expenditure - in relative terms between four million persons and a potential six million persons as it would be to provide an extra two million or so people with some symbolic "representation" in parliament. The need for such is rendered rather pointless, however, by the fact that such "representation" would be completely meaningless and ineffective due to a border limiting the jurisdictional remit of the parliament. Anyhow, the Irish government remains fully committed to cross-border initiatives and bodies to which it is party, as well as the funding of such. At least it can be said that offering citizenship extra-territorially does offer some benefit of substance, no matter how significant or insignificant, once again depending on your perspective. I'm not sure what the substantial point, beyond the cross-border framework that is already in place, would be in offering northern-born Irish citizens a vote. If you can think of one, though, I'm sure I wouldn't object. ;)Quote:
No need to be picky. My point was that providing those documents, rights and support costs very little. My parents worked for the Brit Foreign Office abroad for years and providing consular support to tourists who'd lost their passports or money was a very minor sideline. Following directly from that, offering the service doesn't cost much more for six million people in Ireland than it does for four. Why doesn't the Dublin government give the passport-holders a vote too for a small fee: then we could have an interesting battle for the last seat in Diaspora North-east...
Quite possibly; even probably. Admittedly, as you've shown, the claim that it might have struggled to sustain itself, especially with the security of the union behind it, was the weaker of my two points. Although, I still think it is fair to say that holding onto as big an area as was logistically and demographically possible, whilst still manufacturing what many would view as the impression of consent/a democratic unionist majority in the new statelet, was in the interests of unionists who sought to partition the island. We've kind of had this debate before and - not wishing to hastily assume anything - I think we're both in broad agreement anyway with differences being a matter of semantics. I never really got the time to respond back then, by the way, so apologies on that front. I was spending more than enough time on here as it was, ha, but I appreciated your endeavours in case you thought I was just being ignorant. Probably saved you a bit of bother anyway. ;)Quote:
Disagree with the latter point. Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area. Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.
Well, bugger that. I'd been hoping all this would be wrapped up today and we'd be saved from seeing this thread reach page 70. :bulgy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
I suppose there have been no official announcements from either the IFA or the FAI on how they felt proceedings went or is there some sort of confidentiality clause in play?
As I say, you may call your country whatever you like, according to your political preferences/prejudices, just as I shall continue to call it what I like, according to mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
But this is a Football Forum, and when it comes to the naming of the two Irish International Football teams, it is not a question of choice (preferred or prejudiced), it is a question of fact. That is, the authoritative body, FIFA, has mandated that the two teams shall be called "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". Fortunately, this also allows for convenient abbreviation, ROI and NI (not that this stops prats labouriously typing out "the North", or "Six Counties" etc, in order to avoid recognising even the very existence of NI, state or football team).
I don't know whether it was without precedent (and neither do you, I suspect), but it was certainly not without subsequent parallels - eg Taiwan/China or the two Koreas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
Mope Alert! In 1953, the four British Associations only constituted a small minority of FIFA Members - FIFA could quite easily have ignored/outvoted them, had it wished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
Only "pretty sure"? Come, come, surely you can do better than that when it comes to getting inside the mind of an organisation which didn't even exist, at a time when you weren't even born*?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
* - Apologies if you are over 57 years of age...
I guess that's one definition of "objective".Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
Anyhow, here's mine:
1. For 73 years from 1880, there was a Football Association ("Irish Football Association") whose team called itself "Ireland", entirely legitimately;
2. Meanwhile in 1921, a grouping broke away from the IFA, styling itself the "FAIFS" and its team "Irish Free State";
3. Nearly 30 years later on, the FAIFS elected to rename itself the FAI and unilaterally call its team "Ireland", following political developments within its own juridiction;
4. By 1953 FIFA, when confronted by the contradictory and confusing situation of two teams calling themselves "Ireland" entering the same World Cup, determined that the IFA must alter its name to "Northern Ireland" (for competition purposes only*), with the FAI to adopt the name "Republic of Ireland";
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.
* - That is, the IFA is still entitled to call itself "Ireland" for friendly matches, though it has declined to do so since around 1980 (its 100th Anniversary, btw)
Well, you took your time, but you got one thing right, at least...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
Knock yourself out, Republic Boy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
Every single one* of those young players has a parent or grandparent from NI, inc Norwood. Therefore, SB/IFA are perfectly entitled to approach them to persuade them to play for NI. Similarly, the English FA is perfectly entitled to approach any young NI-born player who has an English parent/grandparent, to ask them to play for England.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
The problem with eg Gibson or Kearns, is that they do not have a parent/grandparent from the Republic (unlike, say, Duffy or Wilson).
* - Including, incidentally, Steve Beaglehole's own son, Shamus [sic]
I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI. This is in direct contradiction of the assurance given to Jim Boyce by the FAI some time around 1995 (can't find link just now).Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Let me see now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
First there was the IFA, then the FAI broke away. With the former having the right to the name "Ireland" ab initio, by your analogy, surely it must be for the latter to adopt the qualifier?
Actually, both the IFA and the FAW voted against goal-line technology, I suspect because with Blatter having been publicly against it, both realised that Associations would have to stump up the money themselves to pay for it (not such a problem for the notably wealthier FA and SFA).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullivinho
And in any case, it was not the IFA's vote which consigned it to oblivion etc. Even had they and the FAW voted in favour, it still would not have passed, since the four FIFA delegates to the Board all voted against the new technology and when the Board is tied 4-4, the FIFA Chairman has the casting vote.
I was talking about the countries. Like everybody in the world, I refer to football teams according to what country or nation they represent.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
So now you're a nationalist?? :confused: You need to change your terminology! Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Except that they and various other colonial outposts were and are still massively subsidised by the British Exchequer and economy largely based in London.Quote:
Although I recognise the need at the time to placate disgruntled unionists as well as nationalists, Northern Ireland could have survived perfectly well with a smaller population and geographical area.
Luxembourg manages well; Cyprus managed yet another partition despite being much smaller than NI, let alone Ireland as a whole. Not least because NI retained the security of still forming part of the much bigger Britain.
Most of this is just pointless waffle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
As for terminology, the unionists I've encountered tend to say the 'Republic', or maybe 'Southern' Ireland, which is as about as polite as it gets.
According to the relevant thread about this on OWB, it was done to spite the FAI given its relative relevance to them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
And would expect nothing less.
Though to be fair to the IFA, no-one could possibly suggested they impacted on the machinations of FIFA/Bl*tter who are a law onto theselves.
Hmm. Tell us something we don't know(Have highlighted the bold print if only to point more than a little hypocrisy by a certain poster, not unlike your good self!)? The record must be well worn out by now!Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Don't know about all the English/Scottish youngsters playing for the North, though you'll be glad to know GR suggested elsewhere some time ago, they should all go to play for 'Ingerland, simply by virtue of being born there and having better, er, prospects!
Though you should have no problem with Gibson playing for Ireland/the South/Republic, as he's an Irish citizen!
You should try it sometime.....
Lastly if the two FA's can split, there's nothing in current logic to defy they can't reunite at some point....
;)
Do you have a link to a Chris Baird interview saying he was approached by the FAI?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
I've never heard of Kieran McKenna, but a quick search shows that he was born in London, so i'd have had no problems with him being approached to play for Ireland, if he ever was.
How would any approach made to this lad McKenna be different to the approach made to England u17 international Oliver Norwood or Ireland u16 international John (Johnny) Gorman by the IFA?
By drawing such a conclusion from Gather Round's simple assertion that having been born in NI, he is thus "Irish", it is clear that you are incapable of comprehending that it is possible to be Irish, without automatically being automatically being subject to any prescribed political stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
I, for instance, am 100% Irish, having been born and brought up on the island of Ireland, to two Irish parents who themselves were long of Irish stock.
The fact that my politics are Unionist, so that I want my own particular part of the island (NI) to continue to be part of the UK, does not change that simple fact.
Just as, for example, your average Dubliner is still 100% Irish, even since his country decided to join the Common Market/EU. That is, whilst he is Irish and European, I am also Irish and European (and British).
P.S. I know a Unionist from NI who is also a Republican! That is, he wants NI to remain within the UK, but with the hereditary Monarchy replaced by an elected President. (Her Madge's status doesn't bother me personally, but each to his own, I guess)
Once again, there is no prescribed orthodoxy for NI football fans, either. GR and I agree on a number of issues, but disagree on others. "C'est la vie", as our cheese-eating/handballing French fellow Europeans might say...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Just as there are Brazilian-born footballers who are (entirely legitimately) Qatari citizens but who may not represent the Qatari FA unless they also have a Qatari parent/grandparent (or have lived in Qatar for a qualifying period), then I do not accept that Irish citizens like Gibson or Kearns should be permitted to represent the FAI, unless they may point to a parent/grandparent of their own from the Republic, like eg Duffy or Wilson, or have resided there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
There are dozens of precedents for a country splitting up to form two (or more) Football Associations, hence international teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
However, there is NO precedent for two separate countries merging their two Associations to form one international football team, whilst remaioning politically independent of each other.
Moreover, "logic" suggest that any countries which tried it would not be permitted to do so by FIFA, since all the other Member Associations would be likely to protest that the merged entity was thereby gaining an unfair advantage.
Therefore, if you hope to see a single Irish international football team, then you'd better plan on living a very long time, for without an independent, united Irish state, it ain't gonna happen. And even then, there is absolutely no guarantee of that happening, as these guys can attest:
http://www.fifa.com//associations/as...mac/index.html
http://www.fifa.com//associations/as...hkg/index.html
P.S. If, of course, the good people of the Republic were to see the error of their ways* and rejoin the United Kingdom, then I have no doubt they might also rejoin the IFA ("Original and Best" (c) ), thereby getting another chance to 'live the dream'...
* - Perhaps following a visit by Her Gracious Majesty and subsequent readmission to the Commonwealth?
No, not to hand. Iirc correctly, he mentioned it in an interview (soon after he shot to prominence with Southampton in the 2003 FA Cup Final?), that he had been approached by the FAI, but having already played for NI at under age level etc, he wasn't interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
And from this 2008 quotation which I can find quickly, he doesn't ever seem to have regretted his choice:
"The support over the past few years has been unbelievable. A full house at Windsor makes as much noise as 30,000 fans and that type of support makes you want to work even harder on the pitch. Sometimes during a break in play during a game at Windsor the players just look around at the whole ground doing the 'bouncy' and it's an absolutely amazing sight. Support like that really does make a difference".
I guess Rasharkin GAC's loss was NI's (and Chris's) gain!
McKenna's case is a bit analgous to eg Paul McGrath, in that he (McKenna) was also born in London, in his case to NI parents, who moved back to NI when he was very young. Consequently, he was brought up and educated in Enniskillen, represented Fermanagh and NI in various youth tournaments etc, eventually getting to captain the NI U-21 team (and almost make the Spurs 1st team squad), before injury forced him to retire.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
He most certainly mentioned that he had been approached at some stage by the FAI, but had declined their invitation. I do not know whether he has a parent/ grandparent from the ROI.
Since all three (McKenna, Gorman and Norwood) have at least one parent/grandparent from NI, all three are equally entitled to represent NI. Though even had McKenna not been so qualified/blessed, he would alternatively have been eligible for NI on the basis of his UK nationality, alongside his NI residence.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Whereas I have no knowledge of either Norwood or McKenna having a parent/grandparent from the ROI, therefore I cannot see how, having been born in GB, they also qualify for the ROI.
Gorman is different, since he has ancestry from both sides of the Irish border. Consequently, the FAI was entirely entitled to select him for their under-age teams, before he changed his mind and elected to represent NI. Of course, following the latest Rule change by FIFA on eligibility, like Ollie Norwood*, he is now irreversibly committed to NI, wise lad.
* - From his posts on OWC, it seems Ollie's Dad is just as pleased with his choice as the lad himself!
I have no problem with anyone calling themselves Irish. Even if it was Paisley, Stone or Adair. Though I doubt any of them would want to especially claim or acknowledge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
It's just the Irish and British nonsense, unless there's mixed parentage.
Er, the GFA. It makes you 'Irish' and thus them also.....Quote:
Just as there are Brazilian-born footballers who are (entirely legitimately) Qatari citizens but who may not represent the Qatari FA unless they also have a Qatari parent/grandparent (or have lived in Qatar for a qualifying period), then I do not accept that Irish citizens like Gibson or Kearns should be permitted to represent the FAI, unless they may point to a parent/grandparent of their own from the Republic, like eg Duffy or Wilson, or have resided there.
You can't have it both ways!!! And you too now could have played, er, for the new Ireland team!!
Ha. Re-joining the Ugly K is unlikely, but the Commonwealth would even be worth it, if it meant a UI team, just to prove a point!Quote:
There are dozens of precedents for a country splitting up to form two (or more) Football Associations, hence international teams.
However, there is NO precedent for two separate countries merging their two Associations to form one international football team, whilst remaioning politically independent of each other.
Moreover, "logic" suggest that any countries which tried it would not be permitted to do so by FIFA, since all the other Member Associations would be likely to protest that the merged entity was thereby gaining an unfair advantage.
Therefore, if you hope to see a single Irish international football team, then you'd better plan on living a very long time, for without an independent, united Irish state, it ain't gonna happen.
P.S. If, of course, the good people of the Republic were to see the error of their ways and rejoin the United Kingdom, then I have no doubt they might also rejoin the IFA ("Original and Best" (c) ), thereby getting another chance to 'live the dream'...
Couldn't see most other countries complaining, as it would one less team in competition.....
Don't know about the other precedent you cite but will take your word for now!
:eek:
I strongly suggest that you re-read the statutes concerning eligibility a little closer and once you have done so, you can report back to OWC and enlighten some of them (thankfully there are quite a few who accept the reality), since so many on there seem to hold your views in such high esteem. These players do not require grandparents or parents from Ireland, since they were born on the island of Ireland and have presumably always held Irish nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The grandparentage thing comes into effect when a player has a nationality which entitles him to play for more than one association (eg British); it is a requirement in addition to holding the appropriate nationality. Similarly, if they held one nationality and then later assumed a new nationality entitling them to play for another association, then they would be required to have parents or grandparents that were born on the territory of the association they wish to represent (or to have lived there for 5 years) - such is the case with Qatari Brazilians (a comparison of yours which doesn't quite fit).
Another thing, maybe you'd like to post your speculative theory concerning the issue on here? I'm sure you'll get some constructive criticism which you can play with.
Your analogy suffers from an obvious flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The Qatari state does not confer automatic citizenship of Qatar, onto the entire population of Brazil.
Trying to draw any comparison between those now 'infamous' Brazilians representing Qatar in international football, and Irish citizens from Northern Ireland representing the Republic of Ireland in the same arena, is frankly ridiculous!
Bull**** alert? Not wishing to get too involved in a dispute over the history of FIFA as I certainly can't call myself an expert, but don't the four respective British associations make up the International Football Association Board (IFAB) along with FIFA; each retaining an individual vote since 1958 while the other two hundred or so associations are accorded a mere four votes between them? In other words, the British associations exercise, and always have exercised, a disproportionate level of power. Since 1958, six votes have been required to carry any IFAB motion, contrary to your factually incorrect assertion in post #1106 that in the case of a 4-4 tie, the FIFA chairman will cast the deciding vote. Prior to 1958 and subsequent to FIFA joining in 1913, the voting was weighted even further in favour of the British associations with the four of them possessing two votes each and FIFA also possessing two votes with eight votes needed to carry a motion, meaning the British associations could pass any motion they wished if they all voted together, even if FIFA objected. How FIFA might have ignored or outvoted such obvious and domineering control, I'm not sure. Maybe you can help me get to grips with the idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Counter to your grave accusation - :rolleyes: - the FAI often refers to the Irish team as the "Republic of Ireland" and always as such in official competition. Naturally because FIFA have stipulated they do so.Quote:
5. Subsequently the IFA continues to abide by the ruling, whereas the FAI resists doing so.
You mention that the IFA has "declined" to refer to its representative team as "Ireland" in friendlies since 1980. Err, kudos to them for demonstrating such tremendous restraint... :confused: Why would the IFA still wish to refer to their team as "Ireland" anyway despite it quite obviously representing a constituent country of the UK going by the name of "Northern Ireland", as opposed to the state that actually does go by the name of "Ireland"? It would be rather disingenuous for the IFA to continue using the name "Ireland", whether the FAIFS were the "break-aways" or not. Wasn't it in 1950 that FIFA restricted the IFA from calling up Irish nationals? Referring to the team as "Ireland" at any point after after that date surely makes little sense.
Anyway, is it all that big a deal? I don't know why you're getting so wound up and taking offence from the fact that people in Ireland will refer to the national representative team of Ireland as "Ireland". It's not meant as a subtle gibe or dig towards the IFA or at Northern Ireland's expense or existence, or whatever you take it to be. Of course, I'm well aware of the rationale behind its origin, but here we are now in 2010; it's just the name of the country and I would think that it's used completely innocently in the vast majority of cases.
Why do you persist with this misinformed and ignorant rubbish when the error of your ways has been pointed out to you time and time again? The "problem" is, EG, that the like of Gibson is automatically Irish by birthright whereas even Norwood only qualifies to play for Northern Ireland through a mere grand-parental link, if I'm not mistaken. One could argue that the birthright of Gibson to Irishness would take precedence to any claim of Norwood's to "Northern Irishness" if there was some table for ranking the relative strengths of various modes of eligibility drawn up. (Of course, such a proposition sounds utterly daft as all modes have the identical effect ultimately, but bear with me for the sake of debate.) The fact that Norwood's eligibility to play for Northern Ireland spires from article 16.1.(c), whilst Gibson's eligibility is derived from the preceding article 15.1 is surely indicative of which mode takes primacy. The one thing you certainly can't say is that Norwood's mode of eligibility is somehow stronger or more valid than Gibson's. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, the FAI are perfectly entitled to approach the likes of Gibson to persuade him to play for us if they so wish, just as the IFA are entitled to approach Norwood and persuade him to play for them, or even just as the FAI were entitled to approach Robbie Keane and persuade him to play for us. Chew on that for a while...Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
What's the big deal if they'd have been perfectly entitled to play for us anyway? The FAI should be expanding its potential pool of players with confidence and vigour, just as, I'm sure, you hope the IFA do the same. I don't see the supposed shame or embarrassment in offering an Irish citizen an opportunity to play for us. The protestations over this particular aspect of the debate have particularly baffled me. Of what purpose do they serve, other than to help bolster the warped and comical notion that the FAI are out snatching defenceless northern children against their will?Quote:
I don't know the percentage of youngsters who make the first approach, but it is most definitely NOT 100%. For example, both Kieran McKenna and Chris Baird have disclosed that they were approached first by the FAI. This is in direct contradiction of the assurance given to Jim Boyce by the FAI some time around 1995 (can't find link just now).
What exactly was this supposed assurance given to Jim Boyce in 1995, by the way? I'd appreciate if you did root out that link actually, because I didn't realise this whole thing was even an issue with the IFA in 1995. :rolleyes:
Been trying to clarify this whole issue in my own head. I was thinking that 'maybe, just maybe the Northern posters have a point here', with the distiction being made that the FAI represents only the territory within the existing borders of the Republic of Ireland. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how simple this really is.
From FAI.ie:
http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=c...=75&Itemid=139
From Article 2 of Bunreacht na hEireann:Quote:
The Football Association of Ireland is the governing body of football in Ireland.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...xHwwcn-Ri6-JIw
Quote:
It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the Island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation.
Article 15 of FIFA statutes:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe..._072008_en.pdf
Think it's pretty clear-cut.Quote:
Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent
on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the
representative teams of the Association of that country.[/B]
Even without reading the eligibility statutes and in a general context, FIFA employs a negative stance to political interference in football. International football is organised competition between nations not states (which are political creations).
Given that all peoples of the Island of Ireland define themselves as Irish, for example, does the possibility exist that CAS will rule a merger of the two associations? After all why should the Irish nation have two international football teams?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
So you actually have no idea whether either player was ever approached by the FAI?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
At some point between 8:14 and 8:20, I slyly note you managed to grasp it. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Supreme feet
Of course, you're correct; it's very straightforward. Appeals to recognise or take account of association territory or jurisdiction in this instance in order to try and impose a restriction upon certain nationals from representing their nation are haplessly misguided given the fact that article 15 mentions absolutely nothing about association territory or jurisdiction being necessary in establishing eligibility. Nor does it mention anything about parentage or grand-parentage. Rather, it simply raises a player's nationality as the sole criterion upon which eligibility is dependent, just so long as that nationality is not dependent on residence in a certain country. This is the case for northern-born Irish nationals. Their Irish nationality is not dependent on residence in Ireland, it having been permanent since birth.
Beyond that, due to the fact that there appeared to be disagreement from certain NI fans as to which article actually applied, even after the meaning and effect of article 15 was spelled out for them - bizarrely and inexplicably, 'EalingGreen', in his deluded state of being, still continues consistently to make references to territory, parentage and grand-parentage being fundamental to the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals - I posted a while back a lengthy summation on why each of the other articles relating to eligibility don't actually apply in the case of northern-born Irish nationals representing Ireland. It's here if you're interested.
Once again, props to DannyI, The Fly and Predator, amongst others for your contributions above. Rather than thanking every individual post!
Whilst ifk's suggestion is an excellent & amusing one, if only a little 'far-fetched', sadly.