Northern players declaring for the Republic

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

27/10/2006, 2:25 PM
Not Brazil

Quote:

Originally Posted by galwayhoop

this "i'm irish and british" line we are being fed by the OWC men & NI supporters on this thread is nonscence.

if our OWC friends can move away from the cunning ruggers smoking pipes on their beds stories long enough and accept that to the dislike of a number of people on both sides of the boarder that there is a state called northern ireland where some of the peoples believe that they are british then it must also be accepted that there are people in that state who feel 100% irish and not one iota british as their ancestorial background has only recently come under the rule of the crown.

It is not nonsense - it's a reality.

You may dislike the fact that there is a place called Northern Ireland, but there is, and it forms part of the United Kingdom.

I fully accept that there are people in Northern Ireland who identify solely as Irish and desire to see Northern Ireland cease to be part of the United Kingdom, and to form part of a 32 County, Ireland.

That's all sorted.

The GFA upholds the right of anyone in Northern Ireland to identify as Irish and/or British.

The constitutional position will change if and when the majority of people in Northern Ireland see fit for change.

That's the deal that I, and the vast majority of nationalists/republicans, have endorsed.

However, that in itself will not "unite" Irish people from differing backgrounds.

What good a territory united, if it's people remain divided?

Not for me to suggest how to bring about a "united" people - but I would suggest that respecting their differing identities might be a useful starting point. It sure beats trying to bomb an identity out of existance.

I have long stated that their will be no "victories" for one side over the other on this island.

Either we all win together, or we continue to be divided forever.
27/10/2006, 2:33 PM
Not Brazil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

But, given these two options ONLY, would you prefer a player to play for NI youths and then declare for the republic OR play for NI youths, want to declare for the republic but be stopped, and then play for NI senior side knowing he wants to play for the Republic?

I wouldn't want any player to play for any of our teams, who was not giving 100% commitment.

Of the restricted two scenarios you pose, I would, very reluctantly, opt for the former.
27/10/2006, 2:35 PM
Not Brazil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc67

if there's a crown or a union flag involved, it's not an Irish team as far as i am concerned. while i dont claim to speak for my fellow Irish on here there's a hell of a lot of others who agree...

Not looking good for the prospects of a "United" Ireland then, is it?:rolleyes:

PS. Northern Ireland do not play under the Union Flag.
27/10/2006, 2:38 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

I wouldn't want any player to play for any of our teams, who was not giving 100% commitment.

Of the restricted two scenarios you pose, I would, very reluctantly, opt for the former.

AHA! SO you admit... (only kidding)

I wasn't try to pointscore or anything. I fully understand where you're coming from as regards your nationality etc and like billsthoughts earlier I'm one of those who wish the Northern teams well.
27/10/2006, 2:41 PM
EalingGreen

Originally Posted by gspain
I assume that applies to the breakup of a country eg former Yugoslavia or Soviet Union.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc67

do you not think it applies here? a kid has an Irish passport, but theyre telling him they dont want him to play for that country....

I think Gspain was partly correct.

An example of the effect of the break-up of a country was with Andrei Kanchelskis, who was born in the Ukraine when it was part of the USSR. AFAIK, he wished to continue representing Russia, and was not able to be blocked from this by the new Ukrainian FA, never mind forced to play for them.

Anyhow, I think it was primarily intended to apply to a country which was taken over, or subsumed, by another country. An example would be Hong Kong, where FIFA recognises that although HK is no longer an semi-autonomous British Territory, it is still allowed to keep its own separate team and Associate Membership of the Asian Confederation*.

Anyhow, Merc 67's attempt to relate this particular clause to such precedents is flawed, since the Irish situation is not analogous to either.

It might be so if NI were to cease to be part of the UK, and a "Norn Iron Kanchelskis" were to refuse to play for any new team which replaced it.

Similarly, if e.g. the ROI were invaded from overseas by some foreign power (unlikely, I know), ROI-born citizens could not be compelled to represent the new power.

Some argue that even if born in NI, a player may still have Irish/ROI Nationality, so should be allowed to to represent the FAI.
No-one is suggesting that he have British Identity forced upon him, or be forced to represent NI, which is what this clause deals with.
Rather, some others are arguing that if someone is born within the territory of one Association, then he can not represent another Association unless he has a qualifying connection with it (parent/grandparent/residency).
This latter was what FIFA appeared to be saying when faced with the situation of e.g. Qatar giving Passports and Nationality (and huge amounts of dosh) to talented young Brazilians and claiming them to play for the Qatar side.

* - Hmmm, a British territory ceasing to be, yet keeping its international team... There's an interesting idea ;)
27/10/2006, 2:45 PM
Merc67

Quote:

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Anyhow, Merc 67's attempt to relate this particular clause to such precedents is flawed, since the Irish situation is not analogous to either.

No-one is suggesting that he have British Identity forced upon him, or be forced to represent NI, which is what this clause deals with.

i didnt compare the situation to the precedent you claim, so you cannot say i attempted to relate to them.

this situation is about your fa wanting to compel everyone from that jurisdiction to play for the ni team. that IS forcing them to play for ni.
its not an immediate postwar situation as you mentioned, but it is similar.
27/10/2006, 2:52 PM
EalingGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

He must have been a Brit so if his idea of good fun is thrashing places up abroad :)

Somehow, I don't imagine Fergus Slattery was too far away from the fun, or Johnny Moloney, for that matter. Perhaps they, like Messrs. McBride, McKinney, Milliken, Kennedy and Gibson, were "closet Brits" as well...

(Imagine that, eh, five Ulstermen, two Leinstermen and no Munstermen in a Lions Squad. Must have been the influence of that other West Brit, Coach Syd Millar...;) )
27/10/2006, 2:54 PM
Not Brazil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc67

this situation is about your fa wanting to compel everyone from that jurisdiction to play for the ni team. that IS forcing them to play for ni.
its not an immediate postwar situation as you mentioned, but it is similar.

I'm not so sure it's about anybody forcing anyone to do anything.

There is obviously confusion about FIFA eligibility rules.

The IFA and FAI will sit down, discuss it, get guidance from FIFA, and agree to move forward.

Anyone who does not want to play for Northern Ireland is no asset to Northern Ireland.

Nobody is "forced" to play for Northern Ireland.

Any player is perfectly capable of saying to the IFA to "shove it up yer arse" -whether FIFA rules permit them to then play for another Association is what is up for debate.
27/10/2006, 3:00 PM
EalingGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc67

im sure that wasnt for me:) but no, it didnt do that at all, though it is a good article.

notice that its the british and irish lions they are two different things!

as for willie mc, ive yet to meet him personally, when i do ill post the resultant 'chat' on here:)

In 1974, they were simply known as "The British Lions". This was a throwback to their origins, when the whole of Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.

As for McBride, no-one calls him Willie Mc - he's usually known as "Willie John" (it's an Ulster thing), or Bill, to his mates.

Anyhow, if you were to repeat to him some of the things you've posted here, I don't know whether he'd employ a British fist or an Irish one, but you won't be posting anything from anywhere for a very long time! :D
27/10/2006, 3:07 PM
Stuttgart88

Quote:

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Somehow, I don't imagine Fergus Slattery was too far away from the fun, or Johnny Moloney, for that matter. Perhaps they, like Messrs. McBride, McKinney, Milliken, Kennedy and Gibson, were "closet Brits" as well...

(Imagine that, eh, five Ulstermen, two Leinstermen and no Munstermen in a Lions Squad. Must have been the influence of that other West Brit, Coach Syd Millar...;) )

Yep, but they weren't captain!

Was only having a joke anyway. Pretty crappy behaviour all round. Soccer players would be slaughtered for that type of behaviour these days. Different times I suppose but I always think rugby players can pass off loutish behaviour much easier than soccer players.
27/10/2006, 3:08 PM
Merc67

Quote:

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

In 1974, they were simply known as "The British Lions". This was a throwback to their origins, when the whole of Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom.

as you may have noticed the name is no longer the same, reflecting the fact that irish = no longer British:)
27/10/2006, 3:18 PM
Not Brazil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merc67

as you may have noticed the name is no longer the same, reflecting the fact that irish = no longer British:)

Oh, some of us Irish still are Merc67.;)
27/10/2006, 3:23 PM
co. down green

don't you think it would be astonishing if they would presently ignore possible young players from up the road in NI, especially when at least some of them would be amenable to an approach?

Players such as Gibson & Wilson have stated that they have grown up supporting Ireland (as do a large proportion of the population in the North), and while I agree, it would be hard to produce concrete evidence of their reasoning for opting to play for Ireland, I think you may well find that as Irish citizens, who support their national team, it was probably a pretty easy choice for them, and no more difficult a choice than that of a young Dublin or Cork lad.

I think the whole issue has been blurred for far to long and the sooner UEFA confirm the qualification issue and young players from the North are aware of the situation regarding their international choices , it will fail to be a talking point.

It is however important for the FAI to put structures in place to cater for young players form Belfast, Derry, Lurgan etc. who wish to represent Ireland at international level and an extension of the current development and training programmes etc..into the 6 Northern counties would put in place the necessary provision for these young players to develop without them having to use the IFA structures at youth level, as has been the case in the past
27/10/2006, 3:49 PM
galwayhoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Anyhow, I think it was primarily intended to apply to a country which was taken over, or subsumed, by another country.
.........
Similarly, if e.g. the ROI were invaded from overseas by some foreign power (unlikely, I know), ROI-born citizens could not be compelled to represent the new power.

sounds vaguely familar!

as we've been saying these lads should not be forced to represent the new power who have subsumed the island initally and remain in part of it :p
27/10/2006, 3:51 PM
lopez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

"The excuse that NI is in the UK and must wrap itself in the paraphanalia of unionism is rubbish" You are being rather selective in your reading.You have failed to recognise and head what myself and Ealing Green have consistently stated on this thread.We both favour the "paraphanalia of unionism" being dropped at Northern Ireland representative matches ie, essentially a new sporting anthem and a new flag.

To be replaced by what? Other paraphanalia of unionism. You already admit you object to the tricolour for the same reasons.

Why should nationalists accept this when inclusivity could be acheived by having two athems and two flags? Simple enough I would have thought. Or is it that you can stomach nationalists playing for you but can't stomach their nationalism?

I mean, I'm hardly someone that has time for British nationalism but even I have to admit that the playing of just the Soldier's Song at Irish rugby matches is not inclusive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

"Unionism is a combination of being Irish and British, ..."
Unionism is a political ideal. My Irishness and my Britishness are my birthright.

Sorry mate, but this is a discussion about what 'country' one wants to play for, and therefore politics. You're trying to muddy the waters with some cack about being British and Irish at the same time, while being hostile to the democratic wishes of the majority of all the people that live in Ireland. If you had dual - nationality, I'd accept your protests about being Irish and British, although dual nationality doesn't mean you can use one nationality to subjugate the other. However, you admit you don't, so you're just plain British to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

"Northern Ireland as an entity remaining as it is, is not a prerequiste to unification. I'd fully support NI retaining huge autonomy in return for Irish unification" Unification will not come about by telling people born and bred in Northern Ireland what they are and what they are not. Even in a so called "united" Ireland, I will be Irish and British. What's more, any "Eire Nua" would fully respect, and uphold, that. British identity on this island is not going away anytime soon.

British identity doesn't need to go away. I'm not for telling anyone what country's passport they should hold, so cop on and grow up. In fact it's the British government that will stop you getting a British passport, not the Irish.

As stated above, I have no objection to you being British, having British citizenship etc. Despite your pathetic harking back to the 'Brits Out' of 1921, 'Brits Out' means British power being removed. With the exception of a brief pogrom in Bandon, there has never been any attempt to force unionists out of the 26 counties. If you look at the last census, the British make up the biggest minority in the 26C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

"I'm an Irish citizen born and bred in England...'' Good for you - I respect your identity. I identify somewhat differently to you.

You certainly do. I do not wish to interfere in who runs Britain. I don't support the annexing of any part of British territory by a foreign country (unless it doesn't belong to them). I don't support the break up of Britain (e.g. Scottish independence). You can have a German Lady as your ruler as far as I care (J*s*s, imagine 7 years of Th*tch). Your stance - if you still insist on calling yourself Irish - however is more like the Oswald Moseleys and William Joyces who would have welcomed the Nazis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Brazil

Not looking good for the prospects of a "United" Ireland then, is it?:rolleyes: PS. Northern Ireland do not play under the Union Flag.

No they play under the British anthem instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Similarly, if e.g. the ROI were invaded from overseas by some foreign power...

It already is.
27/10/2006, 3:53 PM
galwayhoop

BTW kanchelskis represents ukraine, did so at the world cup and AFAIK continues to do so.

he is on record as saying that the only badge he will kiss is the national crest so i can't see how he'd want to stay on with russia but if he did it was for other reasons
27/10/2006, 4:17 PM
geysir

Quote:

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

Rather, some others are arguing that if someone is born within the territory of one Association, then he can not represent another Association unless he has a qualifying connection with it (parent/grandparent/residency).
This latter was what FIFA appeared to be saying when faced with the situation of e.g. Qatar giving Passports and Nationality (and huge amounts of dosh) to talented young Brazilians and claiming them to play for the Qatar side.

Mercs/dosh and passports, the brainchild of none other than Phillipe Troussier when manager of Qatar.
27/10/2006, 4:19 PM
EalingGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by galwayhoop

BTW kanchelskis represents ukraine, did so at the world cup and AFAIK continues to do so.

he is on record as saying that the only badge he will kiss is the national crest so i can't see how he'd want to stay on with russia but if he did it was for other reasons

Unless we're talking about another Andrei Kanchelskis, I beg to differ:

Andrei Kanchelskis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Abbreviated by EG]

Full name Andrei Antanasovich Kanchelskis
Date of birth January 23, 1969
Place of birth Kirovograd, USSR (Ukraine)
Position Midfielder
Current club FC Krylya Sovetov Samara

National team**
? USSR/Russia 23 (3)/36 (5)

** National team caps and goals correct
as of 2006.

Andrei Antanasovich Kanchelskis (Russian: Aндрей Канчельскис, born January 23, 1969 in Kirovograd) is a Ukrainian football midfielder who claimed Russian citizenship after the fall of the Soviet Union. He currently plays for FC Krylya Sovetov Samara in Russia. He is a dynamic goal scoring winger with great pace.

Although Kanchelskis was born in Ukraine and his heritage is Lithuanian, he chose to represent Russia. He was capped 23 times for the Soviet Union national team, scoring three goals, and 36 times for Russia, scoring five goals. After leading a player boycott against head coach Pavel Sadyrin and therefore missing the 1994 FIFA World Cup, the only senior major international tournaments Kanchelskis played in were Euro 92 and Euro 96.
27/10/2006, 4:22 PM
EalingGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by geysir

Mercs/dosh and passports, the brainchild of none other than Phillipe Troussier when manager of Qatar.

I wonder whether he "trousered" any of it for himself? :D

(Sorry, that was awful. I fear the medication is wearing off. Nurse? NURSE?)
27/10/2006, 4:22 PM
Merc67

as an aside, which may or may not cut this thread short:)

how can one be 'proud' of a state that was 'created' by a few lads in 1920 with a rubber and a pencil and was redrawn on numerous occasions to cut out the fellas who now want to play for the 'other' part of the island? it's always baffled me how ppl say theyre proud of the north as a state. perhaps the people, yes, but a gerrymandered, manufactured, undemocratic abstract existence as it is.... i dont get it:D

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page