Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gather round
No. The current rule is unsatisfactory, ergo a new agreement would be better.
Only because you deem to say so. You are more bothered than the IFA seem to be.
Quote:
Nothing's set in stone, not even the rubbish you keep posting on here.
Presumably more, er, Irony!
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.
You know the history curriculum of every contemporary student now??
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.
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:
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.
It's nothing to do with the country whose name, as highlighted above, does not exist in that form!
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.
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?
But of course it is, as even you should know!
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.....
Quote:
Don't be like that.
Except I was referring to the relative idiocy highlighted above! ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gather round
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.
You seriously need to upgrade the dictionary! Or more irony?
Quote:
Excluding a large proportion of your citizens from voting is obviously biased, whatever the logic.
Whereas of course the British state, and the North especially, has an exemplary record in the rightful and proportional representation of its citizens !
Quote:
Got it in one, Einstein. It's a discussion board, not the Critique of Pure Reason. Lighten up and blow some smoke rings.
Sunstroke??
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.
More pompous nonsense, as highlighted above!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gather round
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.
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.
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 favour for the future. To get the IFA's vote to stage future finals, say.
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.
I think they-like almost all organisations- care at least a little for their public image.
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.
