Norn Iron rubbish part 23452346526

[SkStu]

By the way, if I can be convinced that me and my family would be better off in a "United" Ireland than by remaining part of the UK, i'll vote for it.

better craic (an irish term for fun/jokin around/drinkin sort of stuff)

Similarly, if anyone can convince me why it would be a good idea that the International football team I support disappears, I'll buy the ticket..

theyre not very good?

[EastTerracer]

Similarly, if anyone can convince me why it would be a good idea that the International football team I support disappears, I'll buy the ticket.

Loathe as I am to join this discussion I have been intrigued by the notion that the IFA would be the association to disappear in an all-Ireland scenario. For many years after "the split" and the establishment of the Free-State team the IFA insisted that their team was called Ireland and continued to select players from both sides of the border. This gave rise to the unique Irish issue of dual-International players. Surely if there ever was an all-Ireland team in the future the ethos of the original IFA would be the prevailing one.

For all our sakes, if it did happen, I would hope that we have a whole new set of blazers in place but I would have no objection to one new association (insert Judean Peoples Front versus Popular Front of Judea splitters joke here) with one team representing Ireland with no religious or political connotations.

Flags and anthems can be dealt with separately - anything but Ireland's Call!

[ifk101]

Loathe as I am to join this discussion I have been intrigued by the notion that the IFA would be the association to disappear in an all-Ireland scenario. For many years after "the split" and the establishment of the Free-State team the IFA insisted that their team was called Ireland and continued to select players from both sides of the border. This gave rise to the unique Irish issue of dual-International players. Surely if there ever was an all-Ireland team in the future the ethos of the original IFA would be the prevailing one.

It's not the case that it's assumed the IFA would disappear but that the new association would be FAI dominated to the extent that the IFA power/influence/ whatever you want to call would be very much marginalised.

It is true that the IFA was the first football association on the island (how often are we reminded about this? ). However the FAI came into existance because the IFA was incapable of/ unwilling to administer football on an all-island basis, that is to say, discrimination was rife and the order of the day. Indeed it is the case that the FAI was founded as a rejection of the IFA authority/ position to administer football on the island. With the FAI's foundation, there now was two associations claiming to be Ireland's football association. Note that the establishment of the FAI was not motivated by political events happening at the time - ie creation of Northern Ireland, it just happened to occur in the same time period. The catalyst for the establishment of the FAI was a "disagreement" regarding the venue for a cup match between Glentoran and Shels. It was not until the 1950's that the FIFA limited the IFA's claim to NI.

It can be debated as to why it took until the 1950's for FIFA to intervene. One reason is that the FAI was accepted as a member of FIFA in 1923 and at that time the IFA was not a member. It wasn't until after WW2 that the IFA became a member of FIFA and, as such, the matter of deciding who administered what on the island of Ireland became more pressing.

[Gather round]

They aren't unionist either though

Er, like I said. No-one's claiming they're unionist except in the very broad sense that they seem content to live in Britain, and vote accordingly.

Many nationalists vote for alliance in strong majority unionist areas

If they vote Alliance, they're not nationalist. I know Roman Catholics often vote nationalist in, for example, towns like Bangor or Carrickfergus (where I have a lot of relatives, including Catholics). But the thing is, SDLP and SF both stand there, and inevitably unionist candiates win. There's no need nor point to vote Alliance unless you actually support them. You are just repeating the assumpton that every Catholic baptism mans a ntionalist vote 20 years later and thereafter.

The fact is the nationalist block is approx 7% behind the unionist block and about 42,000 votes. This is simple fact and from the research I have done the nationalist block will be greater than the unionist one in the not too distant future

Agreed on the fact, your conclusion doesn't follow from it because your research is flawed as above.

I have lived in Dublin, Cork, Kerry and Galway and I have never met a southern unionist

Ha ha. No-one suggests there are unionists in those places (or even people vaguely sympathetic to them). I'm suggesting pretty much the opposite, that they want little to do with them. (Admittedly this attitude hs faded a bit since the Troublings ended, but I'm pretty sure it's still there and would be obvious if ever Southern voters had to face the real possibility of a united Ireland next Tuesday).

No but I do believe repartition will never be allowed to happen. In fact im sure of it

That's just blind faith, isn't it? I'm not saying it's inevitable, but it could well happen for the reasons I've described.

The British will not repartition the country again as they will have the same problems all over again

They might if not doing so left them with those problems anyway?

The Irish gov will never allow partition as it knows when they have 50% + 1 there is an internationally recognised agreement that will pave the way for a British withdrawl

Actually, they won't. Not just because of the large minority of disaffected unionists, but also as a future election or referendum might swing the 50% + 1 the other way. If the nationalist minority in NI looks like approaching 50%, which I don't expect to happen for generations if at all, unionists will almost certainly insist on a replacement agreement. To which international recognition will follow, because you know internationally people are happy enough for us to sort it out locally.

the majority of people in school are nationalist

Don't be daft, they can't vote until they're 18.

I know of many hardcore nationalists who will never vote in a British election except for a border poll. "I'll wait for the big one"

I too know a few, but equally there are such people on the unionist side. Maybe more of them. The trouble with this theory is that politicians- both in SF and the DUP- have been telling us for decades that every election is a border poll, and yet tens of thousands of voters ignore them and stay at home. On both sides, like.

Dear Lord. Do you think the UK government would trim the border, and have the same problem come back again in 50 years or so?

Aye, feasibly. A British government at any point isn't going to be that bothered about what another British government needs to do in 50 years time, particularly on a relatively small-scale issue. Which moving the border three or four miles would be.

Dear oh dear. If there was to be repartition, some Unionists seem to think that simply the cityside of Derry and Newry would be trimmed away to suit them

Aye, like I said such changes are feasible. Newry and Derry Cityside are more than 85% nationalist. I think it might just suit those people, as well as unionists.

More likely there would be a big wedge cut through the current NI jurisdiction. Tyrone, Fermanagh, most of Derry, S Armgh & Down would be "lost". West Belfast and the Glens may also be "lost". Realisically over half of the 6 counties would leave the union in this depressing scenario

Why would it be more likely? While all those areas have nationalist majorities, they aren't tending to 100% as in the cities of Derry and Newry, and the areas are obviously geographically much larger. Towns like Enniskillen and Downpatrick have villages around them that are mainly unionist. West Belfast and the Glens of Antrim are surrounded by unionists. There could be a mini-referendum in each district, but you might be left with a patchwork of cantons like in Switzerland, effetively impossible to draw a border around. If there isn't going to be a united Ireland, as I assume, then a small adjustment which pleases tens of thousands of people without really upsetting those on the other side is more likely. It's utilitarian really, the greatest good of the greatest number.

Furthermore, I fail to understand how people who consider NI to be "their country", would consider cutting it in half again

I'm quite happy for Derry Cityside to be in my country, but if almost everyone living there wants to be in another country, I can live with it and see some benefits, as I've described.

Surely its one for all and all for one. Would Fermanagh now be as foreign as Derry and Donegal are for each other? Its beyond any logical comprehension

No, that slogan's outdated. Most of the unionists who used to live Cityside have left, have they not (I think about 1,000 or less from a pre-1970 population of 20,000-odd?). I'm not suggesting any change to the border in Fermanagh, if you aren't either why raise it?

I remember reading somewhere that:
-for nationalists, Ulster represents the ancient province of Ireland
-for unionists, Ulster represents the maximum possible area of land mass on the island of Ireland they can control

Aye, broadly so. A similar principle applied in Yugoslavia after WW1, where the dominant Serbs wanted the country to include every area with a Serb population, even if a minority. Eventually this system fell apart. Unionists in Northern Ireland may see the advantage in strengthening their position in a smaller area by giving up areas where barely any of them live any more.

Additionally the Unionists preach that the will of the majority of the people of NI should be respected. Respected that is while the majority of the people are Unionists. Then the borders should be re-drawn. Yet again. The will of the majority of the people of this new state should then be repsected

Well, as you can see I don't fully agree with that sermon. A basic flaw is that you could be left with the situation where about 15% of the population of a notional united Ireland don't identify with the state. Retaining effectively two states, as we do now, reduces that number. As I said, it's utilitarian.

All the while paid for by the long suffering English taxpayer

Speaking as one, I think the LSET might well accept a future change which transfers responsibility for Derry Cityside to the Republic of Ireland with the support of most of its population. Could be a winner all round.

Surely if there ever was an all-Ireland team in the future the ethos of the original IFA would be the prevailing one

Maybe, but in practice the support and symbols of the FAI would dominate in this notional set-up. As IFK says above.

Well the economic argument is the most compelling. Otherwise why would the Scots hang round with the English for so long? Or vice versa

Indeed. A united Britain benefits all areas of Britain.

Though as a good English 'republican' pal said, why should "we hang onto Wales and the North either, apart for sentimental reasons"? He said besides Hong Kong, England should jettison the rest of their former colonies as economically they were a drain on a country that was or is hardly 'efficient' in any case. And he's not the only one, to give credit to the English

See reply above. Your mate might not be a lone voice but his electoral support is negligible. Hardly anyone in England votes to break up Britain. BTW, you do realise that Britain has the sixth-largest economy Worldwide? Of course there are some inefficiencies, but overall it must be doing something right.

Accept the Irish economy is pretty fecked and will be for a while;Though don't forget the Brits' one isn't too great either just now. And certain parts of it are net beneficiaries, which maybe one day they'll apply a similar economic logic to and jettison them.....

If such logic did apply, the Irish Republic would jettison much of the country outside Dublin, not want to increase its population by 30%. Put another way, economically NI is a small problem, 3% of Britain as a whole.

[newrynyuk]

Though as a good English 'republican' pal said, why should "we hang onto Wales and the North either, apart for sentimental reasons"?
He said besides Hong Kong, England should jettison the rest of their former colonies as economically they were a drain on a country that was or is hardly 'efficient' in any case.

Eh? Hong Kong is still part of the British Commonwealth? What was all that handover hoopla in 1997 about then?

Actually, there might be a lesson for Unionist here. Hong Kong island was actually Britian's to keep in perpetuity (it was only Kowloon and The New Territories that was to be handed back to China in 1997). However Mrs Thatcher gave the whole lot back to China in the 1984 agreement. It wasn't a popular decision with the locals and strangely enough she has never set foot in HK since.

Why Hong Kong island was given back was never made clear. Although conspiracy theorists might point to how British construction firms got major building contacts in China afterwards. British firms who also happened to be big Tory party donors, but that's not me...

The point is, Britian will always do what is best in it's own self economic interest, regardless if the locals get screwed in the process.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Missed out the word 'have' in the original text;it's not now though obviously.
And operates differently from the rest of China.

Anyway, the point was that it's one of the few colonies that the English should have held onto.
And though it does spill into their own form of messy nationalism, a lot of English people now regard themselves over that, rather than 'British', which is a flawed concept to them anyway.

[seanfhear]

Gather round said

Aye, feasibly. A British government at any point isn't going to be that bothered about what another British government needs to do in 50 years time, particularly on a relatively small-scale issue. Which moving the border three or four miles would be.

Some Unionists and British people need to get away with the idea that you can dictate to Nationalist people what you decide to be done.

That kind of an attitude can lead to civil war and has not been extroadinarily successful in NI in the past.

There is an agreement in place that if 50%+1 (in NI) vote for a United Ireland then this with a vote in the South will create the conditions for United Ireland to be created.

In the event of these votes taking place do you believe anyone in their sane state of mind is going to try to dictate to the people of Ireland what is going to happen.

If his happens and it may or may not, then British goverments days of deciding the border within Ireland are over for good. If you cannot accept this then you are living in a place called Denial and we should be concerned for your mental state.

Is'nt this a football forum

You see if we had qualified for the world cup all this would have stayed relatively deep below the surface.

That hand of Frog has a lot to answer for what with now re-igniting the Irish border issue. If only Johnny Evans had been in position to majestically clear that ball before the fowl(sic) deed was commited.

[gspain]

It can be debated as to why it took until the 1950's for FIFA to intervene. One reason is that the FAI was accepted as a member of FIFA in 1923 and at that time the IFA was not a member. It wasn't until after WW2 that the IFA became a member of FIFA and, as such, the matter of deciding who administered what on the island of Ireland became more pressing.

Effectively the IFA considered itself the FA for the whole island even after the formation of the FAI in 1921 (then the Football Association of the Irish Free state).

The FAI did pick Northern players for the games in Spain & Portugal in 1946 but otherwise didn't.

Northern Ireland typically only played the other Home Nations prior to 1951 - trips to France & norway in the 20's and a game v south Africa in Belfast in 1924 (only recently reclassified as a full International) were their only games against "foreign" opposition.

FIFA had to get involved because the Home Nations entered the 1950 World Cup albeit using the Home Championship as qualifiers. The FAI asked FIFA to intervene and stop NI from picking RoI born players. Influence was also used with certain English clubs to stop them releasing southern playewrs for what is now NI. This is all documented in the FAI's official history by Peter Byrne 1996. FIFA couldn't allow players to play for 2 different countries in the World Cup so effectiuvely the NI team that played Wales in Wrexham in 1950 was the last official team to represent this island as a whole in a football match.

There was another battle resolved by FIFA in 1954 over the term "Ireland" which was resolved with the terms Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland being used for Internationals outsid eof the home championship. Northern Ireland used "Ireland" still for the Home Championship as late as 1978.

[ifk101]

Effectively the IFA considered itself the FA for the whole island even after the formation of the FAI in 1921 (then the Football Association of the Irish Free state).

But it is not the case that the FAI also saw itself as the FA for the whole of the island up until the 1950s when FIFA stepped-in? I see the establishment of the FAI as an attempt to disband and replace the authority of the IFA rather than seeking to establish an association purely for the Irish Free State (geography covered by the modern day Republic).

[geysir]

FIFA had to get involved because the Home Nations entered the 1950 World Cup albeit using the Home Championship as qualifiers. The FAI asked FIFA to intervene and stop NI from picking RoI born players.

The irony of that

[co. down green]

The FAI did pick Northern players for the games in Spain & Portugal in 1946 but otherwise didn't.

John Feenen, Jackie Brown, Davy Jordan, Mick Hoy & Hugh Connolly all played for the FAI side 1935 - 38.

After a complaint from the IFA to the English FA, Harry Baird, Walter McMillen & Jackie Brown were ordered not to play for Ireland by the English FA in a European tour in May 38.

[eelmonster]

Er, like I said. No-one's claiming they're unionist except in the very broad sense that they seem content to live in Britain, and vote accordingly.

If they live in Britain, I suspect they're Labour, Lib-Dem, SNP, Plaid Cymru or some other mainland party voters (or abstainers)

[ArdeeBhoy]

There was another battle resolved by FIFA in 1954 over the term "Ireland" which was resolved with the terms Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland being used for Internationals outside of the home championship. Northern Ireland used "Ireland" still for the Home Championship as late as 1978.

Credit to the IFA for not going down the partionist line till then. Though N-E.Ulster would be a more apt geographical moniker!


And what Eeelmonster said.

[gspain]

But it is not the case that the FAI also saw itself as the FA for the whole of the island up until the 1950s when FIFA stepped-in? I see the establishment of the FAI as an attempt to disband and replace the authority of the IFA rather than seeking to establish an association purely for the Irish Free State (geography covered by the modern day Republic).

No quite the contrary. According to Byrne in the official FAI history (page 45) upon breaking away "it had as it stated mandate the obligation to provide International competition in the part of the island that came under the control of the Irish Free State"

[Gather round]

Some Unionists and British people need to get away with the idea that you can dictate to Nationalist people what you decide to be done

Who's dictating? I certainly am not.

That kind of an attitude can lead to civil war and has not been extroadinarily successful in NI in the past

Since no-one's dictating, it probably won't lead to another civil war. What's the problem?

There is an agreement in place that if 50%+1 (in NI) vote for a United Ireland then this with a vote in the South will create the conditions for United Ireland to be created

That agreement-like any agreement- can be re-negotiated. The South will not inevitably vote for a united Ireland.

In the event of these votes taking place do you believe anyone in their sane state of mind is going to try to dictate to the people of Ireland what is going to happen

To repeat, no-one's dictating anything. Plenty of people- most of them perfectly sane- disagree with you and will argue accordingly. Given that, some form of agreement or compromise- which may not be identical to the current one- is likely to follow.

If his happens and it may or may not, then British goverments days of deciding the border within Ireland are over for good

You're missing the point here Sean. The British government includin g the local NI administration will AGREE it with the the Republic of Ireland government.

If you cannot accept this then you are living in a place called Denial and we should be concerned for your mental state

No need thanks. You really must stop these lazy, ill-informed assumptions about anyone who disagrees with you. Apart from anything else, it's a bit obsessive.

Is'nt this a football forum?

Aye, why are you raising issues nowt to do with football?

You see if we had qualified for the world cup all this would have stayed relatively deep below the surface

I suspect not. Many would have said 'look how great the South are, let's all get behind them. And they'd be even better with Johnny Evans!'. Luckily they ain't getting the chance. Life's tough.

That hand of Frog has a lot to answer for what with now re-igniting the Irish border issue. If only Johnny Evans had been in position to majestically clear that ball before the fowl(sic) deed was commited

Why didn't Paul McShane clear it?

If they live in Britain, I suspect they're Labour, Lib-Dem, SNP, Plaid Cymru or some other mainland party voters (or abstainers)

Ha ha. Kingdom Kerry and I above were clearly talking about people voting Alliance, Green etc. in NI. So your suspicion about who votes Plaid or SNP is a bit irrelevant, like.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Yawn. More patronising hot air.
Not to mention numerous factual inaccuracies!

[seanfhear]

Gather round said

That agreement-like any agreement- can be re-negotiated. The South will not inevitably vote for a united Ireland.

For there to be re-negotiations then both sides have to want to re-negotiate. The Irish goverment and the Nationalist/republican parties in the North may not be of a mind to re-negotiate.

Whether some people like it or not they may have to live with at least the broad thrust of what was negotiated in the Good Friday Agreement.

[gspain]

John Feenen, Jackie Brown, Davy Jordan, Mick Hoy & Hugh Connolly all played for the FAI side 1935 - 38.

After a complaint from the IFA to the English FA, Harry Baird, Walter McMillen & Jackie Brown were ordered not to play for Ireland by the English FA in a European tour in May 38.

Mick Hoy played with Dundalk and Hugh Connolly with Cork. Dicky Lunn also of Dundalk was also born in Portadown if memory serves me correctly. None of them and Jordan and Feenan ever played for NI. As eligibility rules were lax in those days I suspect this has more to do with the players being with Irish clubs.

Brown is an interesting one as he represented both associations. I don't know but I am very sceptical of the wikipedia claim that the FAI at the time were claiming to pick and All Ireland side.

I don't know what the policy was in the 30's but Peter Byrne in the official history refers to the decision to select 4 NI players for the 1946 tour as a u turn and the newspapers referring to a strange selection. Byrne also states that the FAI were priding themselves on being able to survive on their own resources.

They subsequently didn't pick and NI players after the 1946 tour.

Con Martin was pressurised by Dublin to withdraw from the Wales game in 1950 which he resisted. It was only when his club chairman at Villa said the club were told they wouldn't be welcome in Dublin if Con continued with NI that he was forced to withdraw from the NI team. Although a couple of un-named players did indicate they were willing to continue playing for NI the IFA admitted defeat.

[Gather round]

For there to be re-negotiations then both sides have to want to re-negotiate. The Irish goverment and the Nationalist/republican parties in the North may not be of a mind to re-negotiate

Fine, but realise that if you don't want to renegotiate the present partition of Ireland, then it'll probably remain in place.

Whether some people like it or not they may have to live with at least the broad thrust of what was negotiated in the Good Friday Agreement.

That's not how politics works. If nationalists refuse to consider any change, then unionists are likely simply to ignore them. You're the ones who want the big changes overall, remember: sulking if you don't get all of them at once is a bit negative.

[ifk101]

No quite the contrary. According to Byrne in the official FAI history (page 45) upon breaking away "it had as it stated mandate the obligation to provide International competition in the part of the island that came under the control of the Irish Free State"

Fair enough.

However the FAI was formed prior to the creation of the Irish Free State and the stated mandate you mention above seems to be that of the Football Association of the Irish Free State (formed as a condition for FIFA membership) rather than the motivation behind the establishment of the FAI a couple of years earlier. The Football Association of the Irish Free State reverted back to calling itself the FAI in the 1930s and it's here we see the FAI resuming a role as FA for the whole island challenging the IFA's perceived position as such.