NI Passports

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

And you were doing so well until you got to that bit! ;) :D

:ball: PP

---

I thought he stumbled at

Quote:

---

fought on both sides in the Spanish civil war

---

The blueshirts actually fighting?
maybe amongst themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

What's sordid about it?
:ball: PP

---

Did you read all the posts on this thread PP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krstic

Did you read all the posts on this thread PP?

---

Speaking for myself, some sordid posts do not make a sordid thread. Even in cases of obvious provocation, answers to the sordid were intelligent, precise and informative. Off topic yes.
Just to mention one thing
I had assumed that middle of the road Unionists not to mention D.U.s would have considered themselves British and Northern Irish (not Irish), that the Island was clearly divided into two distinct seperate entities and that stating oneself to be Irish gave more recogition to a unified concept than a Unionist was prepared to admit.
The definition of what is Irish is anyway quite subjective and changing.

I must say that there are some quality posts that would keep me reading all day and all night and I learned a bit too from them. It makes us fully aware that we do not understand Northern Ireland enough as we have a habit of stereotyping both the Nationalist/Unionist communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

If the Italians want it.....Why not? Though they have their own 'national' issues!

As for the 'Commonwealth', what a Patronisnising 'mealy-mouthed' sop that is.

Given all its constituent members were invaded by force; Thanks, but No.

& lastly(& I would be genuinely interested to hear :eek: What do :rolleyes: Catholic Unionists think?!
Obviously we have the ''predictable' bickering, but coming from the opposite side of the fence, both Politically & 'religiously', I'd like to know? Why?!

Wolfe Tone (& significant others) instilled in me, why we should Never accept the British state 'governing; in Ireland & what I saw & heard* from being at one of the 'top' educational establishments in the North, did nothing to change this view. :mad:

*Makes me enraged even writing this now, years later. It was an absolute Disgrace.

---

What was a disgrace?

Fair enough and lets face it, everyone in NI could tell a story. The country was in serious problems but as many have said lets think about the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crc

As a follow up to Gather round's eloquent post, you must get past the notion that there is only one conception of Irishness - the conception that many in Ireland (north and south) have successfully convinced themselves (and the rest of the world) that only the Green, Leprechaun, diddly-dee, GAA, republican, etc, version of Irishness is valid.

This is a fallacy. There are many other strands of Irishness (including, but not limited to, the British heritage of some, the Orange tradition, or the emigré community) and unhelpfull too. This is why Paisley can call himself Irish without an ounce of hypocracy, or why Linfield proudly boasted last year that they were 'Champions of Ireland', or why David Healy's goal against England was so fantastic.

---

Absolutely spot on.

An inability of many to get beyond a myopic view of Irishness.

What's more, many of those unionists/loyalists who would profess "I'm not one bit Irish" have been conditioned to think like that because of the aggressive myopic propogation of Irishness which has created the illusion that the only true Irish are arran jumper wearing, fiddly dee music playing, GAA fans who supp their Guinness whilst bleathering about the evil Brits.

I will never denounce my Irishness because some try to make me feel guilty that my Irishness is not as worthy as theirs.

Republicans in particular have often told me that I am merely "an Irishman in denial". When I have said, "You're right about the Irishman bit, but wrong about the denial", this is met with the cry that I'm not really an Irishman by the self same people....then we have folk like Gonzo telling us that it's me who has an identity crisis. How bizarre.

Perhaps some from both sides might care to reflect on the name of these organisations:

The Grand Orange Lodge Of Ireland
The Royal Irish Regiment
The Irish Football Association
The Church Of Ireland

I would suggest that none of these are bastions of republicanism.;)

I am absolutely clear about my identity. It clearly poses the Gonzo's of this world some serious questions as to how they accomodate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

I had assumed that middle of the road Unionists not to mention D.U.s would have considered themselves British and Northern Irish (not Irish), that the Island was clearly divided into two distinct seperate entities and that stating oneself to be Irish gave more recogition to a unified concept than a Unionist was prepared to admit.
The definition of what is Irish is anyway quite subjective and changing.

---

I'm Northern Irish.

How can Northern Irish not be Irish?:eek:

When I am abroad and asked if I am Irish, I would yes normally reply "Yes, I'm from Northern Ireland"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

I'm Northern Irish.

How can Northern Irish not be Irish?:eek:

When I am abroad and asked if I am Irish, I would yes normally reply "Yes, I'm from Northern Ireland"

---

Nothing to be eeky about :)
I used the past tense.
The statement was made the context of what have I learned about in this thread.
If squezed to clarify, I had assumed that if asked when abroad, a Unionist would have replied British or Northern Irish and not that they were Irish. That assumption has changed.
Who said anything was incorrect about a Unionist saying they were Irish, not me, nor was it implied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

Well none of those US citizens would be allowed play for the National team home or away without a passport. It is required to have the document and to present it to the referee before you will be allowed participate in any interntional fixture. The drill is as follows the team sheet is completed by a team official with the full names as shown on the passport of each player, as well as their dates of birth and is signed by the captain.
The team sheets( for both teams) complete with a passport for each of the names therein is presented to the referee. This takes place approximately 1 hour before kick-off. The referee and or one of the assistants or 4th official. The match official will check each one and then the passports are returned to the respective teams and copies of the team sheets are then returned to the teams officials. Each official gets a photo/carbon copy of the other sides team sheet.

I have been involved on committees in running mini-qualification tournaments
for UEFA and the same rules apply whether it is Senior , under age internationals or Champions League games and UEFA Cup games male or female.

---

All very interesting, but has nothing to do with what I posted.

It was asserted that the FIFA ruling would deny NI players the right to both forms of citizenship, so I pointed out that it would do nothing of the sort. Passports are merely an internationally accepted form of proof of citizenship. They do not confer entitlement to citizeship - which was what was being suggested.

Struggling to see how your reply links into any of this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

I'm Northern Irish.

How can Northern Irish not be Irish?:eek:

When I am abroad and asked if I am Irish, I would yes normally reply "Yes, I'm from Northern Ireland"

---

Absolutely agree with you Not Brazil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

All very interesting, but has nothing to do with what I posted.

It was asserted that the FIFA ruling would deny NI players the right to both forms of citizenship, so I pointed out that it would do nothing of the sort. Passports are merely an internationally accepted form of proof of citizenship. They do not confer entitlement to citizeship - which was what was being suggested.

Struggling to see how your reply links into any of this...

---

The passport is a proof of identity, like a National Identity card. They confer
on the bearer a representation of their personal and national identity.
They show what "citizenship" the bearer has. I don't see how you cannot grasp that basic point!
My reply was to a post about very few US people having passports. I made the point that they could not represent the USA at football or indeed in any other internationally competitive sport for that matter, until they acquire a passport. I then went on to illustrate how a player , even playing at home, needs their passport in order to participate in an international fixture and why that is so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

The passport is a proof of identity, like a National Identity card. They confer
on the bearer a representation of their personal and national identity.
They show what "citizenship" the bearer has. I don't see how you cannot grasp that basic point!
My reply was to a post about very few US people having passports. I made the point that they could not represent the USA at football or indeed in any other internationally competitive sport for that matter, until they acquire a passport. I then went on to illustrate how a player , even playing at home, needs their passport in order to participate in an international fixture and why that is so.

---

Point of passports was well grasped - in fact, I was saying the same.

The US bit is what threw me, as it's obvious from this discussion that you'd need a US passport to play for the US team. That doesn't stop only reportedly 7% of the US population having a passport, and it doesn't stop the vas majority of the other 93% from being entitled to one if they wanted it.

I think we just had our wires crossed, so apologies dude. :ball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

now you're 'Irish'! Hurrah!

Have stated my case previously;unionist 'denial' is only for their own convenience & on their own terms!
If you you don't understand this now, well that's not that unsurprising.

As for the bodies you list, 3 are endemic symbols of the British state in the North, despite their name(s). Not that it bothers me, though they should be confined to history books.

---

What do you mean "now you're Irish"?

The only person guilty of denying my Irishness on this thread all along has been your goodself....I have repeatedly stated that I am proud to be both Irish & British.

Perhaps it is you and your ilk who want to dictate the terms of what constitutes Irishness?

Your comments regarding the institutions I listed are revealing.

You haven't grasped the basic fact that Britishness on this island is here to to stay.

Those who seek to eradicate Britishnes are doomed to failure and cannot deliver a truly "united" Ireland.

My and my kind are going nowhere.

That, my friend, is a fact.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

So now you want to be 'British', :rolleyes: make your mind up,FFS!

---

Once again, I am proud to be both Irish (born in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland) and British (within the United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).

You obviously don't understand that. Rather than respect it, you sneer at it in hatred.

Until you do understand and accept it, there is absolutely no propspect whatsoever of a truly "united" Ireland.

I'll ignore the rest of your rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ah, but the truth hurts. I'm sure Gerry & Ian will take your views into consideration though! ;)
As for 'hatred', how can anyone sneer at a 'concept', not even :rolleyes: the majority of unionists would subscribe to,FFS?

---

What truth hurts?

What concept?

I am what I am. If you cannot accept that, too bad.

As for Gerry and Ian, I can assure you that I will never be voting for either of them or the extremist parties they represent. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gonzo

Fair enough. Just don't think your self-proclaimed :rolleyes: tag is 'realistic'. The rest of the 'questions';If you don't know the answers after reading this thread, then guess you never will.

However, more seriously, there aren't any practical moves by the politicians(who have the vast bulk of electoral support in the 6 counties) who are referred to, to address the current stalemate, well one in particular. :(
But as yer man says above, we all have to try to move on. I'm just not particularly optimistic about it.

---

Why the roll-eyes smiley after "self-proclaimed" ? He is clearly self-proclaiming ! And how can you say "fair enough" and then say in the next scentence you don't think he's being realistic ?? If it is "fair enough", then don't criticise it.

As for your continual off-topic moans about Unionist politicians - this is a thread about Northern Irish football and a FIFA ruling. Just because NotBrazil is a Unionist himself does not make him single-handedly responsible for Unionist politics and politicians. Regardless - can we keep this thread to the relevant issue and not go off on petty digs at certain groups or politicians ? There are other parts of the site for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by totalfootball

Ireland has a strong history of anti-imperialism, much more so than any other Western European country, and this has a lot to do with my own sense of Irishness. If Ireland were to complete the transformation into an overtly pro-imperialist country, like the UK and Australia, both Commonwealth members and invaders of Iraq, then the people of Ireland would bear a lot of the responsibility for this as they elect the government. Inevitably this would change how I feel about the Irish football team. The team represents the country and the people, that is why it is called representative football. Why would I want to cheer on a team who would represent a people and country that had turned its back on its own history and was now doing to other countries what Britain did to it?

---

Yes Ireland has a strong history of anti-imperialism. But you could also argue that the Irish were as much oppressors as other nations. I have a magazine article about an Irish general in the American army who gave the order to massacre Native American Indians. I'll try and find out the details. What about the Irish who settled in North America and Australia. What did they do help the natives there? What about the Irish who served in the British Army.

I'm just as much of an anti-imperialist as you are. But we're not completely innocent. In fact you can even go back to ancient history to when the Irish invaded and settled in Pictish inhabited North Britain in the fifth cenury. This resulted in a country called Scotland. The evidence of Irish "imperialism" in that country is still found in the place names. A dialect of Irish is still spoken today in the Western Isles. The Pictish language of the natives died out in the ninth century.

I think a United Irish Republic which I support would have to recognise the Scottish and English ethnic background of the Unionists to survive. What does the Orange on the irish tricolour represent? Commonwealth membership would recognise their connections with Britain. Didn't South Africa rejoin the commonwealth under Mandela. He's not an imperialist, is he?

I always got the the impression that it seemed easy for people to place people in NI into DUP or SF camps. I for 1 cant abide any of those parties and dream of real politics in NI. Not sure what people think about the idea but I have always been a firm believer in Individual passports for NI, Scot, Wal and Eng nationalities. I believe we are seperate people historically and deserve our seperate identities. I understand peoples ideas that NI shouldnt exist but it does at present and we need to get on with it and try our best to accomadate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

Once again, I am proud to be both Irish (born in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland) and British (within the United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).
You obviously don't understand that. Rather than respect it, you sneer at it in hatred.

Until you do understand and accept it, there is absolutely no propspect whatsoever of a truly "united" Ireland.

I'll ignore the rest of your rant.

---

ok thats your view and i do not want to change your view but could i ask what makes you proud to be british?

im not catholic or prodestant but i would still like a united ireland where we leave the past in the past and not cling to another country to rule/run our island
i would like to have a independent united country

and is this topic ment to be about players with irish passports playing for northern ireland?
not a political debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citybone

ok thats your view and i do not want to change your view but could i ask what makes you proud to be british?

im not catholic or prodestant but i would still like a united ireland where we leave the past in the past and not cling to another country to rule/run our island
i would like to have a independent united country

---

I'm proud to be British because I am British. I was born British and I will die British. I am also proud to be Irish. I was born in Belfast, and have lived there all my life.

I respect your desire to see a "united Ireland". I would point out that there cannot be a "united Ireland" unless all the people of Ireland are united.

Attempts to eradicate and demonise "Britishness" on the island will not unite people.

"Britishness" is here to stay. Time to wake up to that stark reality.

Also, I care not what religion, if any, a person is. Protestants and Catholics are merely two very similar strands of the same religion.

From today's Indo:

Ahern's Good Friday argument sparks a Fifa U-turn on passports

• Govt. has persuaded FIFA to abandon forcing NI players to carry British passports
• "stunning victory" for "slick diplomatic argument"
• IPJ slams as cheeky and none of Ahern's business (though equally none of his own, maybe?)
• official announcement expected within week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Yes Ireland has a strong history of anti-imperialism. But you could also argue that the Irish were as much oppressors as other nations. I have a magazine article about an Irish general in the American army who gave the order to massacre Native American Indians. I'll try and find out the details. What about the Irish who settled in North America and Australia. What did they do help the natives there? What about the Irish who served in the British Army.

---

I pointed that out on another thread in reference to the Amritsar Massacare of 1919, which was ordered by Tipperary man General Michael O'Dwyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

From today's Indo:

Ahern's Good Friday argument sparks a Fifa U-turn on passports

• Govt. has persuaded FIFA to abandon forcing NI players to carry British passports
• "stunning victory" for "slick diplomatic argument"
• IPJ slams as cheeky and none of Ahern's business (though equally none of his own, maybe?)
• official announcement expected within week.

---

Positive news, if it dos come out.

Paisley can feck off with hsi blinkered attitude. Ratehr than beomoan Bertie's involvement, he should be asking why the IFA weren't capable of the type of "slick, diplomatic arguement" required to quickly and easily over-turn a ridiculous decision. If it had stayed inside football, Bertie wouldn't have had to get involved.

Or more to the point - what representations did Paisley make on the matter himself....?

Steve- the article actually refers Dermot Ahern, and the Irish ambassador to Bern, Joe Lynch.

IPJ's own website is quiet on the subject, unsurprisingly. To be fair to his party, Nigel Dodds called the other day for new local facilities in time for the Olympic games. I assume he meant 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Steve- the article actually refers Dermot Ahern, and the Irish ambassador to Bern, Joe Lynch.

---

Apologies - the above excerpt only said Ahern, so I assumed Bertie.

Though if it wasn't the Taioseach wading in, then that makes Paisley's lack of involvement even more glaring. It duidn't even require a heavy-weight like Bertie to sort it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

IPJ's own website is quiet on the subject, unsurprisingly. To be fair to his party, Nigel Dodds called the other day for new local facilities in time for the Olympic games. I assume he meant 2012.

---

The 2 are completely unrelated, so one can't be asserted as a 'to be fair' to the other. I can imagine the dilemma at DUP House - what do you do when something would be good for Northern Ireland, but would also involve recognising/supporting the rights of the nationalist identity. Answer - do nothing! :D I do hope that some day they'll grow out of this childishness....

Anyways - good to hear that the whole passport issue is apparently now sorted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

The 2 are completely unrelated, so one can't be asserted as a 'to be fair' to the other

---

I was being slightly facetious about the DUP's attitude to sport, but I quoted Dodds because at least it shows the party does take an interest (in something other than nationalist-baiting).

Anyway, we're agreed that as per the Sindo story Joe Lynch seems to have it in hand with the gnomes at FIFA.

I heard on the news yesterday the the Irish FA are not happy with the Irish Govt. over the way they went about their dealings with FIFA?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raheny Red

I heard on the news yesterday the the Irish FA are not happy with the Irish Govt. over the way they went about their dealings with FIFA?!

---

This issue raised its head at least 3 years ago. The IFA sat on their hands. They can hardly complain now if, after all this time has past, that politicians stepped in and in particular the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, who after all is responsible for looking after the interests of Irish People, with Irish Passports in a "foreign" country.

Guy on Newstalk 106 from the IFA last night cleared a lot of it up. He (think it was CEO) said that the IFA had been in contact about this with FIFA for a number of years and were trying to quietly reach an agreement. While FIFA understood the peculiar NI situation, they were afraid of setting a precedent that might lead to tricky situations elsewhere.

He said the press foudn out about it and have made a story out of something that was probably going to be sorted anyway. As for Dermot Ahern, he played it down saying that FIFA had always understood the GFA situation about citizenship.

Seems to me like Ahern was trying to get a bit of publicity for nothing. eth CEO guy did say that the Presdient of the IFA was in a bit of a huff about Ahern's intervention "as his personal opinion" - I take this as meaning that there are still a few of the old guard in the IFA, but that this issue is not political at all and is a mountain out of a molehill

I'm not sure I want to even enter this debate but was wondering if FIFA do agree to an Irish passport as proof of elgibility for NI, how they will manage this. Does this mean e.g. Roy Keane would have been eligible for NI. I know you can argue that a British passport doesnt show any more conclusively but it does appear that NI can have their choice of any UK or Republic player.

National sensitivities aside this seems a bit of a farce. Shouldnt elgibility be based on place of birth/birthplace of parents/grandparents. In which case shouldnt FIFA ask for a copy of the relevant birth cert and see where the person was born. The whole thing is otherwise open to huge abuse. In fact you could argue that there are 3 teams (Eng, Sco and Wales) who can pcik rom the exact same pool fo 52 million people plus NI have the choice of that 52 million plus 4 million from RoI. Maybe France, Italy and Germany could band together in the same way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

I'm not sure I want to even enter this debate but was wondering if FIFA do agree to an Irish passport as proof of elgibility for NI, how they will manage this. Does this mean e.g. Roy Keane would have been eligible for NI. I know you can argue that a British passport doesnt show any more conclusively but it does appear that NI can have their choice of any UK or Republic player.

---

It says your place of birth on it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by totalfootball

It isn't the case of just arguing that the British teams can select from the same pool of players, it is a fact that they can do this according to FIFA rules. At present, the individual British FA's then make up their own extra rules about who qualifies to play for them, but these rules are completely unofficial and they are entitled to change them, or get rid of them, whenever they want. However, if they did do this, and then fielded UK teams 1,2,3 and 4, there would then be huge pressure to abolish the UK's exceptional right to have four teams instead of one.

---

This is a unique problem to the UK - givent he fact that history has habnded the state 4 separate international football teams, when everyone else has to make do with only one.

There is always pressure for the UK's archaic 'right' to have 4 teams to be abolished. It is the only political unit in the world to have this privilege. The Basque Country and Catalunya have much more political autonomy as 'nations', for example, yet don't have separate football teams. Individual American states have more autonomous powers than Wales and NI, yet we don't have 50 separate teams representing the US.

This pressure comes from a mixture of sources - from the likes of Spain and France (worried that it sets a bad precedent for their own nations) and from the developing regions (Africa, Asia and Oceania) who are unhappy with the continual balance of power and world cup placings in favour of the Europeans.

It may take another 100 years, but at some point this anachronism will change. There are likely to be 2 new footballing nations added to Europe's already bloated pool of teams later this year (Montenegro and Kosovo). The UK has a thoroughly uinfair advantage, and eventually it'll be forced to relinquish it for onbe or other reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

This is a unique problem to the UK - givent he fact that history has habnded the state 4 separate international football teams, when everyone else has to make do with only one.

There is always pressure for the UK's archaic 'right' to have 4 teams to be abolished. It is the only political unit in the world to have this privilege. The Basque Country and Catalunya have much more political autonomy as 'nations', for example, yet don't have separate football teams. Individual American states have more autonomous powers than Wales and NI, yet we don't have 50 separate teams representing the US.

This pressure comes from a mixture of sources - from the likes of Spain and France (worried that it sets a bad precedent for their own nations) and from the developing regions (Africa, Asia and Oceania) who are unhappy with the continual balance of power and world cup placings in favour of the Europeans.

It may take another 100 years, but at some point this anachronism will change. There are likely to be 2 new footballing nations added to Europe's already bloated pool of teams later this year (Montenegro and Kosovo). The UK has a thoroughly uinfair advantage, and eventually it'll be forced to relinquish it for onbe or other reason.

---

Not necessarily because in 100 years Scotland and Wales may well be sovereign independent states. After all where was the Republic of Ireland 100 years ago? It didn't exist ! As regards Kosovo, well there will be no FIFA recognised Kosovar national side. If Kosovo does break away from Serbia fully,and gain independence, it will simply merge with Albania and become an even greater source of instability in the region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

I'm not sure I want to even enter this debate but was wondering if FIFA do agree to an Irish passport as proof of elgibility for NI, how they will manage this. !

---

Nothing changes
IFA quote
"They're going to accept that players from Northern Ireland can hold either a British or an Irish passport and travel on these as long as the Irish Football Association certifies the eligibility of the players involved."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

Not necessarily because in 100 years Scotland and Wales may well be sovereign independent states. After all where was the Republic of Ireland 100 years ago? It didn't exist !

---

If Scotland and Wales are independent nations in 100 years time, then there will obviously be no opportunity to enforce a UK team, as the Uk won't exist !! Hardly a staggering revelation. Meanwhile, assuming the UK is still intact for the foreseeable future, the pressure within FIFA for this anachronism to be addressed will continue. Even if other nations did believe that there might at some wholly undefined point in-time possibly, perhaps be an independent Scotalnd and Wales, the pressure will still exist (and most likely grow) in the here and now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

As regards Kosovo, well there will be no FIFA recognised Kosovar national side. If Kosovo does break away from Serbia fully,and gain independence, it will simply merge with Albania and become an even greater source of instability in the region

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

This is a unique problem to the UK - givent he fact that history has habnded the state 4 separate international football teams, when everyone else has to make do with only one.

There is always pressure for the UK's archaic 'right' to have 4 teams to be abolished. It is the only political unit in the world to have this privilege.

---

Denmark, Greenland and Faroe Islands have seperate teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

It may take another 100 years, but at some point this anachronism will change. There are likely to be 2 new footballing nations added to Europe's already bloated pool of teams later this year (Montenegro and Kosovo). The UK has a thoroughly uinfair advantage, and eventually it'll be forced to relinquish it for onbe or other reason.

---

Is it an unfair advantage? England won the World Cup once in 1966. Scotland have never got past the first round of a World Cup Finals. Wales only qualified only once in 1958. A United Kingdom side with a greater pool of players would be more likely to be successful. Just look at the success of the the Liverpool teams of late 70's and early 80's in Europe with English and Scottish players. Do we Irish really want to see a all-Brit team win the World Cup. NO!

The only good side to a UK team would be the Nationalist backlash it would provoke in Scotland and Wales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Denmark, Greenland and Faroe Islands have seperate teams.

---

I knew someone would mistakenly mention the Faroe Islands in this context.

The history of colonialism, inter-dependancy etc between nations globally have resulted in a spectrum of 'relationships' between some individual countries/nations. It is very often not just a simple case of 'is this country independent - yes or no'.

For example, the Queen of England is still the legal head of state for countries like New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Jamaica, amongst others. Puerto Rico is a dependancy of the US (one-step below state-hood). All these countries are much, much more politically and legally independent than Scotland, Wales and NI - and they have their own football team to recognise that.

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

The Greenland national team is not a member of any international football bodies, isn't recognised officially in world football, and is therefore irrelevant in this debate.

Meanwhile there are plenty of other regions/nations in Europe and elsewhere that are part of a larger political unit (e.g. Basque Country) and have much, much more legal, political and moral autonomy than Scotland, Wales and NI, yet they are not allowed to have an international team. This is patently not equal treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paddy ramone

Is it an unfair advantage? England won the World Cup once in 1966. Scotland have never got past the first round of a World Cup Finals. Wales only qualified only once in 1958. A United Kingdom side with a greater pool of players would be more likely to be successful. Just look at the success of the the Liverpool teams of late 70's and early 80's in Europe with English and Scottish players.

---

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

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

The ONLY reason the UK has 4 represntative sides in world football is because it is a quirk of history. If FIFA was recognising international football teams from scratch now, the UK would only get one. Just because it is a quirk of history does not make it either right or exempt from change.

The natural extension of giving Wales, Scotland and NI their own sides would be to create sides for numerous other 'nations' in European and world football - many with much, much stronger legal, political and moral claims as to their status than the Uk teams. Areas/nations like Catalunya, Basque Country, Flanders, Wallonia, Kurdistan and Tibet, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy Ramone

Do we Irish really want to see a all-Brit team win the World Cup. NO! The only good side to a UK team would be the Nationalist backlash it would provoke in Scotland and Wales.

---

Sorry Paddy - I didn't realise that you were the voice of the Irish people.... :rolleyes:

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

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

FIFA were apparently bankrupt in the late 40's and were bailed out by the 4 Home nations. As aprt of the deal they have been guaranteed to be allowed continue with 4 national sides and have always had a Vice President of FIFA. this is currently David Will but Harry Cavan held the role for many years.

Although the deal was done over 60 years ago there is ahrdly any will ther eon any side to change this.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

FIFA were apparently bankrupt in the late 40's and were bailed out by the 4 Home nations. As aprt of the deal they have been guaranteed to be allowed continue with 4 national sides and have always had a Vice President of FIFA. this is currently David Will but Harry Cavan held the role for many years.

Although the deal was done over 60 years ago there is ahrdly any will ther eon any side to change this.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gspain

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

---

Exactly #2; which is why there will be no Scottish participation in the GB&NI team in the 2012 Olympics football tournament (as the host, GB&NI is an ex officio entrant).

:ball: PP