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.
