Printable View
Not going to drag the thread further OT, but unsurprisingly I disagree almost entirely with everything you've said. A little purple hardbacked document with an emblem on the front trumps a feeling or a state of mind every day of the week. Thats why people give up their lives for the right to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I've been searching for a reference myself and am similarily turning up a blank I'm afraid so as per the 'back it up or pack it up' rule I'll respectfully draw my horns in.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
My sources thereafter are anecdotal and include an incident where an introductory letter addressed to the President of the Irish Republic was handed back.
She's not your wife til she says I do and they're not NI players til they're capped. As for 'recruiting' -a single anecdote about Brian Kerr phoning Chris Baird aside there's scarcely any more evidence of it than there is of the IFA using the milk cup to tap up England youths for their side.Quote:
so, 74 pages later, should we stop recruiting NI players?
On the substantive issue I've said before I'm uncomfortable with players being cuckoos eggs in the NI setup before switching to us. Though there's nothing illegal in it. We'll see what happens when CAS release their details but it might be the case that they recommend (I truthfully have no idea if they've the power, inclination or remit to do so) a local arrangment between the IFA and FAI. But I have my doubts if that's actually in NIs best interests either. As things stand they get to 'make their case' first and show what the IFA set up has to offer to kids who's inclination may be to play for us (RoI). If the FAs come up with some local arrangment the IFA might be getting a lot more Thanks But No Thanks from such kids when call ups go out.
In my very first post on this topic I said as much (okay I long windedly implied it's author was a WUM). It should maybe be changed to something like 'Player Eligibility Row' but that's up to the mods.Quote:
Poorly worded thread title. They're Irish players
I was talking about their ability to use some shred of sense, not that they belong to different parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
And hereditary political dynisties? I'm instinctively republican, but I can see why so many have survived and why so many were destroyed. The Italian and Spanish were kicked out through their weakness to stand up to fascism. The Danish survived by standing up to fascism. The Spanish one returned through fascism and brought itself some credibility by dismantling the fascist state through its own rules then, its head, sticking his head on the line to ensure fascism would not return. The obvious problem is when you get a d*ckhead as the pretender, but then in some democratic republics, people often vote them in. Someone mention George Bush? Or even Charles Haughey?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
YawnQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Except as ever on this, you're Wrong. 95% of those players would have Irish-born parents. A bit like the families of all the players now claimed by the North! Anyway, for most people this isn't really a problem. However....
You obviously despise the concept of Diaspora*, which is pretty insulting not just to the Irish, but many other ethnic groups in a similar way around the world....
If they* want to play for the Ireland football team, rather than one that wants to be part of Britain, that would make them 'more' Irish in the eyes of most people who weren't paranoid.....
Well it is the Conservative & Unionist party. But they still got p*ss-all support in the North.Quote:
Not true in the recent general election- the Conservative Party fielded candidates, in co-operation with the Ulster Unionist Party, in 17 of the 18 NI constituencies. And even in Fermanagh/ South Tyrone the single agreed non-nationalist candidate said that if elected he would broadly support the Tories.
As you suggest, it'a a shame that Labour (the only other British party which has been capable of leading a government in the last 90-100 years) can't be bothered to stand.
And why would Labour be bothered with a colony half of their traditional voters have never recognised??
Well, they could hardly do any worse than the two teams mediocre record you keep referring to!Quote:
I fear it might be just a bit more difficult for this notional unionist-welcoming RoI football team to match the rugby boys' exploits. Like the competition in European/ World football being a bit stiffer. Anyway, the eggchasers' success basically amounts to topping the European qualifying group occasionally, if less often than Scotland or Wales.
Maybe you should take it up with Bl*tter & co, but on current evidence you know less about the game than even them!Quote:
And maybe more in the future, given the large number of English players in our U-19 and U-21 squads. All qualify within the rules, but personally I think it makes international football look a bit daft when so many are from outside the country.
So now you speak for all immigrants?? Because on this, you're again very very wrong.Quote:
I didn't, rather offering a rational explanation that people who are born, grow up and live their whole lives in England are likely to feel at least a bit English (and to have English, or at least non-Irish, parentage and grandparentage).
I've 15 first cousins btw, four of whom grew up entirely outside NI. While interested in family history and that, they see themselves as English and Canadian.
Some do and some don't assimilate into host cultures. Is there a law that they should, either way?
Though notice none of your family claim to be, er, 'Irish'. So no change there! ;)
More patronising BS, outside the unionist community.Quote:
Part of Ireland has been part of Britain (the British state, if you prefer) continously for centuries. So many people feeling British is perfectly natural.
What foreign players ??Quote:
u might see the odd one, hamstrung by the odd eligibility rules like Kernaghan or who went off in a huff after arguing with the IFA (like McGeady, allegedly). Put starkly: if the Republic do start to qualify regularly, the team will be harder to get into; if they don't, it won't be that much of an attraction to foreign players.
In which case Charlie D. was completely wrong on his last point! Sorry.Quote:
OWC (say) is likely more representative of fans than similar boards in larger countries, simply because a larger proportion of the fans read it.
The first sentence is just pure Hypocrisy(again!) while the second is more pointless waffle.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Huh??Quote:
We'll be the NIFA, you can be FAI[R FUX], ie ~ Republic: featuring unionists exceptionally.
There was a gentleman's agreement before the GFA, but you're right the FAI could have picked anyone with an Irish passport. The GFA granted the right to everyone (diplomats etc excepted) born in the 6C to Irish citizenship - e.g Asians and Chinese born in the North were now eligible - not just those with a Grandparent born there before 1922, although I know this was ignored prior to 1998. It has now been reduced to those born with parents legally resident in the North at the time of their birth with the referendum a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
There is a well known extradition warrant of Dessie Ellis, that was sent back to Britain for the wrong use of the name. According to wikipedia: 'In 1989 the Irish Supreme Court rejected an extradition warrant that used the name Republic of Ireland. Justice Walsh ruled that, "if the courts of other countries seeking the assistance of this country are unwilling to give this State its constitutionally correct and internationally recognised name, then in my view, the warrants should be returned to such countries until they have been rectified."' Source: Casey, James, Constitutional Law in Ireland, ISBN 978-1-899738-63-2, p. 31, in reference to the Ellis v O'Dea extradition case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
I think they got this wrong, and I think that the warrant was addressed at the time to 'The Irish Republic'.
You obviously didn't understand my point. I too have a little hardbacked purple number (steady, missus!). Mine too says Ireland on the front. I'm just as Irish as you with documents to prove it, not that I need them. Your passport doesn't trump anything for me. It's just a travel document.Quote:
Originally Posted by One Red Army
Er, who? Republic of Ireland passports have been readily available to those qualifying for decades.Quote:
Thats why people give up their lives for the right to get it
Why not? If it's anything like the deal I'm suggesting (neither side will pick anyone already capped as an adult by the other) it prevents a player moving after 18, but doesn't deny any youth player (even if over 18) a choice. If nationalist players don't want to play for NI, they can decline the cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
No problem in principle. If the voters want to choose Liam T Cosgrave (say) because his Da and Granda were head honcho, that's fine. Wiki tells me that in a number of elections, they chose not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lopez
You have an Irish passport now??Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Except If you had one, you'd know they Don't mention the word, 'Republic' !!Quote:
Republic of Ireland passports have been readily available to those qualifying for decades.
Except anyone who's eligible can switch, up until they can get a full competitive cap......Quote:
If it's anything like the deal I'm suggesting (neither side will pick anyone already capped as an adult by the other) it prevents a player moving after 18, but doesn't deny any youth player (even if over 18) a choice. If nationalist players don't want to play for NI, they can decline the cap.
So what (not that you have the remotest idea what proportion of Irish-qualified people in Britain have two, one or no Irish-born parents)? My point is that lifelong English-resident people are likely to feel at least a bit English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardee Troll
I don't, not sure how you figure that out. I recognise there is emigration (for which diaspora is really just a slightly hi-falutin' alternative). I half-expect you to break into Rivers of Babylon or something every time you mention it.Quote:
You obviously despise the concept of Diaspora
It wouldn't. I'm 100% Irish; no-one can be 101% thus. No-one on this thread is more paranoid than you. Stop posting nonsense.Quote:
that would make them 'more' Irish in the eyes of most people who weren't paranoid...
The Conservative/UUP bloc got 15% in May 2010. Do you think your SDLP pals' 16% support is p*ss-all too?Quote:
Well it is the Conservative & Unionist party. But they still got p*ss-all support in the North
National parties should stand in every seat nationally; they might win seats, or even if it not get a significant vote (more than the Tories', say); most Labour voters recognise Northern Ireland is part of Britain. There hasn't been a single British general election since 1918 in which ending partition was an issue. You'd struggle to find a single seat in England, Scotland or Wales where an anti-Irish partition ticket would save the deposit.Quote:
And why would Labour be bothered with a colony half of their traditional voters have never recognised??
I explained why. Hardly anyone in Europe plays rugby union seriously, maybe two or three countries outside the Six Nations.Quote:
Well, they could hardly do any worse than the two teams mediocre record you keep referring to!
You what? I didn't claim to speak for all immigrants, nor suggest any laws!Quote:
So now you speak for all immigrants??...Is there a law that they should, either way?
All of my Irish family members claim to be Irish. They are Irish. Stop posting nonsense.Quote:
Though notice none of your family claim to be, er, 'Irish'. So no change there!
Those from foreign countries. Do try to keep up.Quote:
What foreign players ??
Great British and Irish, it says. What da problem?Quote:
You have an Irish passport now??
I know quite well what they say even without having one. Everyone knows what I mean, you are getting them in a twist pointlessly.Quote:
Except If you had one, you'd know they Don't mention the word, 'Republic' !!
We know. I was replying to Lionel's point about a possible change to that. Do you actually read what others post?Quote:
Except anyone who's eligible can switch, up until they can get a full competitive cap......
That entails compromise, which is something I noticed from the Facebook group and what I saw on OWC when it was an open forum, is sadly lacking on your side, where the ideology is Northern players should ONLY play for Northern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Hopefully the compromise will follow from a recognition that that ideology a) is restrictive and b) has failed/ been by-passed anyway.
In a possible sign of improvement, yesterday IFA admin responded within hours to my letter asking c) why they went to law at all with little obvious of hope of success, d) how they planned to deal with the bad publicity sh*tstorm in the unlikey event they had won, and e) whether they will seek some deal with the FAI(R-FUX) in future. They've promised that Nelson or someone on his behalf will respons more fully soon.
Except you'd be wrong in very many cases. As usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rather round
See your bottom 'point' !
Huh?Quote:
II recognise there is emigration (for which diaspora is really just a slightly hi-falutin' alternative). I half-expect you to break into Rivers of Babylon or something every time you mention it.
So you're not British again??Quote:
I'm 100% Irish; no-one can be 101% thus.
And how many of their voters were voting for the UPP name, 90%+ you'll find. The Tory name made a minimal difference.Quote:
The Conservative/UUP bloc got 15% in May 2010.
Check out opinion polls on Irish unification. A majority of Labour voters have been consistently in favour.Quote:
National parties should stand in every seat nationally; they might win seats, or even if it not get a significant vote (more than the Tories', say); most Labour voters recognise Northern Ireland is part of Britain.
Probably becauuse traditionally they've included many members of the Irish diaspora!
Though more likely they weren't interested in perpetuating colonialism.
Hardly anyone plays cricket, but Ireland are now (just) one of the top ten teams. Good for them. And the rugby team(s) also!Quote:
Hardly anyone in Europe plays rugby union seriously, maybe two or three countries outside the Six Nations.
Are you suggesting they and other UI teams are somewhat invalid??
Not what my spies tell me. I would enquire further and remind them of any polls they've ever participated in!Quote:
All of my Irish family members claim to be Irish. They are Irish.
Lol.
Do elaborate? Actually, don't.Quote:
Those from foreign countries.
Hmm...Quote:
Do you actually read what others post?
See above!
If thats what your passport says, I'd return it. Its clearly got a fairly major typo in it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
No, you are the fool. You rant, and then you backtrackQuote:
Originally Posted by awec
The FAI has already compromised. It agreed in 1999 not to actively pursue NI born players to which Jim Boyce proclaimed himself to be "extremely happy". The CAS ruling does not necessarily change this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
If you get a response from the IFA, could you post the gist of that response here?
I'd be quite interested to hear the official line on the matters which you have queried. I presume that Nelson will issue some sort of press release. For his sake, I hope he gives it more thought than he gave FIFA's statutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Anyway, with regard to the part of your post which I have highlighted - that being the possibility of the IFA seeking a deal with the FAI - what sort of deal do you envisage the IFA actually seeking?
As ifk has noted, the FAI has already compromised in agreeing not to approach northern players, so I find it hard to imagine that the FAI will agree to much else, considering that it will likely be to the detriment of the FAI.
I'm sure they do. I also have cousins born and bred in America, and they position themselves at varying positions along the Irish-American Irish-American spectrum. But you're completely missing the point. There are very particular reasons why many people born in Britain descended from Irish nationalists don't see themselves as British. It's basically the 1st Duke of Wellington's sentiments applied in reverse ("Just because a man is born in a stable, it doesn't mean he's a horse").Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Sorry, you're wrong here - this one's not even debateable. No part of Ireland has ever been part of Britain (or "the British state"). The whole island was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for centuries. Six counties remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Both names make it abundantly clear that Ireland/Northern Ireland is distinct from Great Britain. The only logical reason for people from Ireland to consider themselves British is because they descended from British setllers. Given that most of them have to go back hundreds of years to find an ancestor actually born in Britain, that is extremely odd IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
They put a territorial claim in the constitution to assert their wish to re-unify Ireland. Thankfully they didn't (generally) support violence as a means to achieve it. What exactly is your point? As you well know, my point is that if Irish nationalists had their way, there would be an independent, united Ireland and everyone (NI unionists included) would have a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I personally would like to see all people in NI getting a vote in Irish elections, but aagain as you well know, the people who would oppose that are those on the Unionist/Loyalist side of the fence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Irish citizens in other countries is a different matter as they would outnumber the people actually living in Ireland! That's obviously a completely unrelated issue anyway, and to the best of my knowledge, UK citizens living outside the UK don't get a vote either.
Good post there again, Nedser btw.
However re.your last point, as far as I know (AFAIK) Brit.citizens, if they register around the time of an election to any national level of government, are entitled to vote in the last seat they resided in.
That said, a good English pal now in Spain, claimed "It was scarcely worth the bother".
So he didn't.
Irish citizens outside the state should probably be entitled to at least a limited input electorally, but will leave it to the more constitutionally minded to suggest a viable system.
Will do, but no sign of owt yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by IFK 101
If it's compromised before, it may compromise again. Judging anecdotally just from this and similar threads, many RoI fans while welcoming all qualified players, do agree with me that it's unfair for them to play for two countries successively.Quote:
The FAI has already compromised. It agreed in 1999 not to actively pursue NI born players to which Jim Boyce proclaimed himself to be "extremely happy". The CAS ruling does not necessarily change this
Just the one I've mentioned briefly and repeatedly on this thread. Neither side would select any player who'd already appeared for the other's senior teams (full, U-21, U-19, competitive and friendly matches both) after their 18th birthday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
If it's already made one small compromise, it might make another. Presumably the FAI thought the previous concession was a detriment?Quote:
As ifk has noted, the FAI has already compromised in agreeing not to approach northern players, so I find it hard to imagine that the FAI will agree to much else, considering that it will likely be to the detriment of the FAI
No, I understand your point quite well. The Republic of Ireland is Britain's closest neighbor, the emigrant population is large, there is a history of colonialism, latterly discrimination etc. etc.But let's not get carried away. That quip is memorable, but it doesn't really answer my point. To repeat, anyone spending their entire life from birth in Britain is likely to feel a bit British, just like a Filipino, Nigerian or Polish kid growing up entirely in Dublin or Belfast is likely to feel just a bit Irish. Most kids schooled in Britain in recent years (regardless of how many Irish ancestors they have) have likely barely heard of the Duke of Wellington, btw. Whether from their parents, teachers or anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedser
The British-born guys playing for the Republic of Ireland aren't in the side through any lifelong feeling of non-Britishness, are they? It's because they're good at football.
Ha ha. Now you're just being childish. Northern Ireland is part of Britain/ the British state, has been for centuries. Part of Ireland is part of Britain. If you don't want to debate that, fine.Quote:
Sorry, you're wrong here - this one's not even debateable
Big deal.No political party in the Republic has done anything in 60 years (70 years of the Constitution, 90 since independence), either to negotaite away even a small change to the border on behalf of nationalists, or to reassure unionists of a welcome in this notional united Ireland. As I said above, repeatedly, many (most?) people in the South are only keen if it remains notional, were there any realistic likelihood of it happening you wouldn't see them for dust. Derry Cityside or Newry could have been in the Republic decades ago, if they were really wanted.Quote:
They put a territorial claim in the constitution to assert their wish to re-unify Ireland
Sorry, left out a bit there. I singled out Sinn Fein not for the paramilitarism, but because they at least have contested elections in Northern Ireland. FF, FG and the rest haven't bothered in 80 or 90 years. Why? Because they aren't interested in support there.Quote:
Thankfully they didn't (generally) support violence as a means to achieve it. What exactly is your point?
That's just a daydream. The problem is that RoI citizens in NI don't have a vote in the former. Which is an issue if only because some RoI supporters here are detailing at length how welcoming the Republic is to all Irish people.Quote:
As you well know, my point is that if Irish nationalists had their way, there would be an independent, united Ireland and everyone (NI unionists included) would have a vote
Disagree, it's the same issue. The Republic withholds the vote from citizens living abroad because it suits it, largely because of the broad cost. As for the outnumbering, if you allocate citizenship so widely, of course TP Coogan's 70 million Worldwide will trump four million in the country. Likely opposition from unionists isn't the main factor- if it was, there wouldn't have been any Articles Two and Three for 60 years.Quote:
I personally would like to see all people in NI getting a vote in Irish elections, but aagain as you well know, the people who would oppose that are those on the Unionist/Loyalist side of the fence...Irish citizens in other countries is a different matter as they would outnumber the people actually living in Ireland!
Unionists taking RoI citizenship so they could get a vote and maybe elect someone into Dail Eireann would be funny.
That's undemocratic too.Quote:
to the best of my knowledge, UK citizens living outside the UK don't get a vote either
To vote in British elections, you need to be inter aliaQuote:
Originally Posted by Ardee Bhoy
* living, or at least registered, at a British address (which implies you need to be the owner or tenant there, or have a friend or relative acting as such, or similar)
* a British citizen, or similarly of any Commonwealth Country or the RoI
I don't claim any expert knowledge, but the French system seems more relaxed. As long as you're a citizen, you can just register with a consulate abroad. No address in la Belle France is needed.Quote:
Irish citizens outside the state should probably be entitled to at least a limited input electorally, but will leave it to the more constitutionally minded to suggest a viable system
Except as it's been repeatedly pointed out, the FAI, as with all national FA's (inc.the IFA), can bid for eligible players up until they receive a full competitive cap. End of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
No other agreements are necessary.
The last part of the paragraph about whether people know about who Wellington is more patronising BS, whilst know plenty of individuals born/raised in Britain (and other countries) who don't in the least feel any affinity to their 'host' nation. Why should they?Quote:
The Republic of Ireland is Britain's closest neighbour, the emigrant population is large, there is a history of colonialism, latterly discrimination etc. etc. But let's not get carried away. That quip is memorable, but it doesn't really answer my point.
To repeat, anyone spending their entire life from birth in Britain is likely to feel a bit British, just like a Filipino, Nigerian or Polish kid growing up entirely in Dublin or Belfast is likely to feel just a bit Irish. Most kids schooled in Britain in recent years (regardless of how many Irish ancestors they have) have likely barely heard of the Duke of Wellington, btw. Whether from their parents, teachers or anyone else.
The British-born guys playing for the Republic of Ireland aren't in the side through any lifelong feeling of non-Britishness, are they? It's because they're good at football.
Some will and some won't.
Think you might have to expand, er, yer cultural experience on this one! ;)
Hasn't it only existed since the 1920's??Quote:
Northern Ireland is part of Britain/ the British state, has been for centuries.
Clearly you're again out of touch again with the unionist community who have this thing about 'not conceding an inch'. Them and their pals in Britain have far more to do with any redrawing of the border. Given how the whole thing was gerrymandered in the first place!Quote:
No political party in the Republic has done anything in 60 years (70 years of the Constitution, 90 since independence), either to negotaite away even a small change to the border on behalf of nationalists, or to reassure unionists of a welcome in this notional united Ireland. As I said above, repeatedly, many (most?) people in the South are only keen if it remains notional, were there any realistic likelihood of it happening you wouldn't see them for dust. Derry Cityside or Newry could have been in the Republic decades ago, if they were really wanted.
The former is due to being actively discouraged by your unionist mates and those parties having been seen as deserting their potential voters there. Not to mention inherently flawed in the main.Quote:
I singled out Sinn Fein not for the paramilitarism, but because they at least have contested elections in Northern Ireland. FF, FG and the rest haven't bothered in 80 or 90 years.
The problem is that RoI citizens in NI don't have a vote in the former. Which is an issue if only because some RoI supporters here are detailing at length how welcoming the Republic is to all Irish people.
The latter will happen in time, but at the moment the rabble who are our TD's have the more important issue of trying to hold the Irish economy together. Plus they don't want lots of northern Nats.voting even for the SDLP, let alone SF!
Which is wrong.
You said it!Quote:
I don't claim any expert knowledge
;)
No. The current rule is unsatisfactory, ergo a new agreement would be better. Nothing's set in stone, not even the rubbish you keep posting on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardee Bhoy
Not really. I was just responding in similar dismissive style to Nedser's post (although in practice Wellington isn't as well know as before, simply because the national curriculum doesn't teach kids about 19th century generals like it used to).Quote:
The last part of the paragraph about whether people know about who Wellington is more patronising BS
I too know such people, I'm not denying they exist. But, unlike you and Nedser, I don't assume that everyone is like me and the people I know.Quote:
whilst know plenty of individuals born/raised in Britain (and other countries) who don't in the least feel any affinity to their 'host' nation. Why should they?
Hair-splitting. What is now Northern Ireland was part of the British state since 1800.Quote:
Hasn't it only existed since the 1920's??
No, I'm quite in touch with what they think. Much of which is just exaggerated rhetoric. Unionists claimed up to 1920 that they wouldn't concede a single county, then gave up 26 of 32. The border remains unchanged since the 1920s largely because it has suited a succession of governments, and public opinion, in the Republic. Before, during and since the Troublings. It's pretty obvious.Quote:
Clearly you're again out of touch again with the unionist community who have this thing about 'not conceding an inch'
To repeat, it's not mainly because of unionist protests. The Republic of Ireland and its institutions have done many things unionists don't like over the years. So are you agreeing with me that the Republic's parties have deserted their potential voters? If not, what's flawed and why?Quote:
The former is due to being actively discouraged by your unionist mates and those parties having been seen as deserting their potential voters there. Not to mention inherently flawed in the main
So we're agreed then?Quote:
Plus they don't want lots of northern Nats.voting even for the SDLP, let alone SF! Which is wrong
Don't be like that. You asked for an electoral system that allowed foreign-resident nationals to vote straigtforwardly, I offered one.Quote:
You said it!
GR - We all know that Unionists abandoned their own in the border counties in the first place to the tender mercy of the new Republic. Secondly, since the first boundary has hardly worked out well for anyone on this island, what makes you think redrawing another line would?
As for your comments about not being welcoming to unionists in Ireland - what do you think could have been done to be more 'welcoming'? (bearing in mind that the most festive Orange Order parade takes place in the Republic and both peoples have opposite political ideology?)
You have the unlimited capacity to spout all sorts of subjective and uninformed opinions on a myriad of topics and draw irrational conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Franchise requirements, requiring registration in order to vote in parliamentary elections, is logical and without bias. Franchise regulations for Local Gov and Presidential election are different and also have their logic and reasoning.
That is totally irrelevant to what FIFA regard as the premium eligibility criteria - full citizenship as a right. Full citizenship carries a much higher value as a connection to a country than 2nd or 3rd generation blood connection.
You don't like the FIFA rules, you don't like the citizenship rules, you don't like the rankings regulations, in fact, pretty much you are on a constant unending moanfest about most things you disagree with.
Why thanks, but you flatter me. I reckon I've been reasonably objective, well-informed and rational on here, but no doubt you'll tell me where not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geysir
Excluding a large proportion of your citizens from voting is obviously biased, whatever the logic (for which I offered an explanation).Quote:
Franchise requirements, requiring registration in order to vote in parliamentary elections, is logical and without bias. Franchise regulations for Local Gov and Presidential election are different and also have their logic and reasoning
Er, it's relevant because it answers what others have said on the thread. If you dislike/ are bored by/ don't understand it, ignore it.Quote:
That is totally irrelevant to what FIFA regard as the premium eligibility criteria - full citizenship as a right. Full citizenship carries a much higher value as a connection to a country than 2nd or 3rd generation blood connection
What's your point about full citizenship? I'm not denying anyone else's.
Got it in one, Einstein. It's a discussion board, not the Critique of Pure Reason. Lighten up and blow some smoke rings.Quote:
You don't like the FIFA rules, you don't like the citizenship rules, you don't like the rankings regulations, in fact, pretty much you are on a constant unending moanfest about most things you disagree with
Given that the population of the two places I mentioned is about 90% nationalist, redrawing the border around them would presumably greatly increase the number on their preferred side. Don't ye think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janey Mac
You could have, variously,Quote:
As for your comments about not being welcoming to unionists in Ireland - what do you think could have been done to be more 'welcoming'? (bearing in mind that the most festive Orange Order parade takes place in the Republic and both peoples have opposite political ideology?)
* tested your popularity in our elections (only Sinn Fein of the Republic's main parties ever bothered)
* dropped your constitutional claim decades earlier, or even better, never made it in the first place. When we want to join you in a united Ireland, we'll tell you.
It's Ok geysir, pomposity and misinformation is their middle, er, names....
Irish Citizenship entitlements (pre gfa) were outlined in the 1956 citizenship laws. Yes, NI born were entitled to apply for Irish citizenship but it was not an automatic citizenship like that for those born in the South. The GFA caused a change in the Irish citizenship laws to make the criteria same for all on the Island. In the North, the constitutional acceptance of the GFA in a referendum, recognised this as a legitimate right and also Irish unity as a legitimate aspiration for those so inclined, with a constitutionally accepted formula for ending the status of NI. The so called irredentist Irish republic aspirations have been embraced as a legitimate aspiration and constitutionally accepted by the majority of the people in the North.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
I have little doubt that the way the GFA was positively embraced into the constitution, both North and South, rendered any possible IFA irredentist argument against the eligibility rules, redundant in the eyes of FIFA.
re sympathy:
It is not difficult to recognise that NI is a dual national zone. It is not difficult to recognise that the soccer team is linked predominantly with the Unionist support and identity. Possibly I would have similar sympathy that you have expressed, if the IFA had been more sincere in recognising that NI is a constitution of 2 identities. It is way past the time that they should have vigorously eliminated the trappings of the anthem etc. All in all, the way and manner that the IFA have reacted over this whole issue, is actually so typical of Unionist blinkered belligerence.
I suspected that would be the proposal which you would advocate. To be honest, I'm not as enthusiastic about the idea as I once was, since I am in broadly favour of FIFA's rule-change allowing players to switch associations regardless of previous underage honours, because I feel it will undoubtedly benefit both the FAI, the IFA and other small associations (Algeria are a good example), not to mention players themselves. If there was to be such an agreement, I could perhaps see U21 honours as being the cut off point, rather than any appearance past the age of 18, but as I say, I can't see the FAI yielding. More importantly, why exactly should they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
The way the FAI look will probably look at it is, if players born in the north are eligible for selection under FIFA's rules and they wish to change association, then why shouldn't they be selected?
Also, I see that the old cry for compensation has arisen again on OWC. Do you think the IFA will seriously entertain such a ludicrous notion?
Well, it is the (only) one I've mentioned, in this and other similar threads here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
I take your point about the benefits, in that obviously what I'm suggesting would stop some players transferring from England's youth teams to Northern Ireland's. But I'd take that. Given that England's population is about five times that of the rest of Britain's combined, while their football teams don't play a proprtionately larger number of games, clearly there will always be plenty of good uncapped English players who qualify to turn out elsewhere. The players wouldn't be unfairly disavantaged, or pressured while still under-age. They still have a choice, just that its limits are a bit different.Quote:
I feel it will undoubtedly benefit both the FAI, the IFA and other small associations (Algeria are a good example), not to mention players themselves
I wouldn't really call Algeria a good example of smallness in football terms. They've made two quarter-finals and a semi in the last six African championships. They're about the ninth biggest African country by population. If they need 17 or 18 guys from France in their national squad it doesn't say much for their own players. FIFA changed the rules not because they think it's unfair that Algeria are a bit mediocre- it was clearly because the Francophone countries in North and West Africa lobbied in a bloc.
You mentioned previously where they last compromised, now you suggest a possible future equivalent. The FAI might think that the benefit of being seen to be generous may outweigh the notional loss of a few players (who they'd only 'lose' if the players had decided, as adults not impressionable children, to play for Northern Ireland). There's also the possibility- faint thought it seems at the moment- that the FAI might want to store a favor for the future. To get the IFA's vote to stage future finals, say.Quote:
If there was to be such an agreement, I could perhaps see U21 honours as being the cut off point, rather than any appearance past the age of 18, but as I say, I can't see the FAI yielding. More importantly, why exactly should they?...The way the FAI look will probably look at it is, if players born in the north are eligible for selection under FIFA's rules and they wish to change association, then why shouldn't they be selected?
No idea. Obviously I, like you, think the idea is pretty daft, but I can't speak for the IFA. They- and many fans, pundits, politicans etc.- are acting as madly as a box of frogs right now.Quote:
Also, I see that the old cry for compensation has arisen again on OWC. Do you think the IFA will seriously entertain such a ludicrous notion?
Sounds like he'll be at home on this forum. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Yeah, I understand that. I meant that Algeria were a good example of how the rules have benefitted associations. While Algeria may not really compare to the FAI or IFA, I'd still view them as being a relatively weak football association in global terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I honestly cannot imagine that the FAI would prefer to 'save face' or whatever after the IFA's decision to take the eligibility matter to the courts. Indeed, I don't think it is even the FAI who is required to 'save face' in this matter; even so, do you honestly think the FAI particularly care for how they appear to the football world? Think about some of the comments following Henry's handball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
As a football association, the FAI (like the IFA) will always seek to look after its own interests first. In agreeing to such a deal as the one you are suggesting, the FAI would risk weakening its playing pool and the playing pool would surely be considered higher on the list of priorities than diplomacy.
I agree. The level of madness is actually a bit startling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Hang on- I'm not suggesting they need to "save face". Merely that they might be persuaded to see some small advantage in a compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
I think they-like almost all organisations- care at least a little for their public image. Mad reaction to the Henry handball notwithstanding.Quote:
even so, do you honestly think the FAI particularly care for how they appear to the football world? Think about some of the comments following Henry's handball
There's always give and take in compromise. The IFA have to calm down and offer something, along the broad lines I suggested.Quote:
As a football association, the FAI (like the IFA) will always seek to look after its own interests first. In agreeing to such a deal as the one you are suggesting, the FAI would risk weakening its playing pool and the playing pool would surely be considered higher on the list of priorities than diplomacy
Ah right, apologies if I misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Only because you deem to say so. You are more bothered than the IFA seem to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Presumably more, er, Irony!Quote:
Nothing's set in stone, not even the rubbish you keep posting on here.
You know the history curriculum of every contemporary student now??Quote:
although in practice Wellington isn't as well know as before, simply because the national curriculum doesn't teach kids about 19th century generals like it used to.
The first part again is ridiculously patronising and the rest whilst making more sense is enough to make one conclude, 'Amen to that' to the end of that statement.Quote:
I too know such people, I'm not denying they exist. But, unlike you and Nedser, I don't assume that everyone is like me and the people I know.
It's nothing to do with the country whose name, as highlighted above, does not exist in that form!Quote:
What is now Northern Ireland was part of the British state since 1800.
Unionists claimed up to 1920 that they wouldn't concede a single county, then gave up 26 of 32. The border remains unchanged since the 1920s largely because it has suited a succession of governments, and public opinion, in the Republic. Before, during and since the Troublings.
Lol.
Though despite your claimed 'protestations', it's because the unionists have had the backing of Britain.
Nothing to do with nationalist aspirations of various Irish politicians who had no viable means of carrying this out.
But of course it is, as even you should know!Quote:
To repeat, it's not mainly because of unionist protests. The Republic of Ireland and its institutions have done many things unionists don't like over the years. So are you agreeing with me that the Republic's parties have deserted their potential voters? If not, what's flawed and why?
The next sentence is too vague to make sense, while the course of Irish politics in this context has been largely determined by the actions of your mates and threat of unwanted British intervention.
Not to mention the financial implications, which I would admit.
But if you don't know why the mainstream Irish political parties not standing in the North now are flawed, you never will.....
Except I was referring to the relative idiocy highlighted above! ;)Quote:
Don't be like that.
You seriously need to upgrade the dictionary! Or more irony?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Whereas of course the British state, and the North especially, has an exemplary record in the rightful and proportional representation of its citizens !Quote:
Excluding a large proportion of your citizens from voting is obviously biased, whatever the logic.
Sunstroke??Quote:
Got it in one, Einstein. It's a discussion board, not the Critique of Pure Reason. Lighten up and blow some smoke rings.
More pompous nonsense, as highlighted above!Quote:
You could have, variously,
* tested your popularity in our elections (only Sinn Fein of the Republic's main parties ever bothered)
* dropped your constitutional claim decades earlier, or even better, never made it in the first place. When we want to join you in a united Ireland, we'll tell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Again, this is largely waffle. Understand a desire for a notional agreement, but unless the gnomes in Zurich insist, why bother with any compromise? The IFA have hardly facilitated their existence while the reasons highlighted here are barely going to concern the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I'm glad I was away for a few days, the number of stupid posts on this thread in the last few pages (including on the Orange Order - HAHA!) is incredible and I'd have either lost the head at having to correct people on such basic things or had tears running down my face at how ill-informed some people are.
I grew up near the Garvaghy Road. To say it practices tolerance and understanding is quite frankly laughable. The people there wouldn't know the meaning of the words.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
When you have Brendan McKenna as your spokesperson it says a lot.
So what the hell are you doing back? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
My shrink told me that it was safe again. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I didn't make any comment about the tolerance or understanding levels of the inhabitants of the Garvaghy Road. I did say the OO is a sectarian organisation though.Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
For your first statement, I must have picked you up wrong. My apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
For your second statement, that is totally wrong. Is the GAA sectarian? In my eyes it is not, the same way as the OO is not.
As a non-sectarian organisation, whose big day (12th July is all about defeating their catholic neighbours) how do you square that its not sectarian by the fact that even if a catholic was nuts enough to want to parade around in bowlers etc. they couldn't because of the religious bar to catholics.Quote:
Originally Posted by awec