Player eligibility row

[dantheman]

More here:

http://www.u.tv/UTVMediaPlayer/Defau...x?vidid=128820
http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases...-disappointing
http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/h...Submitted=true
http://www.dup.org.uk/articles.asp?ArticleNewsID=1922


They have started it a thread on the unionist OWC website about this.

Naturally EalingGreen, Not Brazil, fhtb have not lowered themselves to address the issue here.
Its apparently not an issue that nationalists should be invited to discuss.
Us Unionists will make up our mind and then get back to ye!!

Lads feel free to contribute. You were very quick to mouth off when the "poaching" stared!

This should come as no surprise, but I wonder why the bother with this Football For ALL when ALL are not invited to debate such issues.
I can't believe these people still accuse the FAI, where religion is never discussed, about sectarianism...

[greendeiseboy]

Lads, I think I've cracked it - I've found an anthem that will be acceptable to all sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3r7Tp7fAZ4

[dantheman]

Lads, I think I've cracked it - I've found an anthem that will be acceptable to all sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3r7Tp7fAZ4

No you're alright. We'll take the Sash!!

[greendeiseboy]

Its at times like this when I realise how lucky we are down here in the South where sectarianism and discrimination is rare and where everyone is free to express their views and be listened to no matter what their colour or creed is.

I couldn't tell you what religion most of my neighbours are or what their allegiances are for any aspect of their lives and I couldnt care less.

Things might be bad here at the moment but to have to make a choice for fear of discrimination on political or religious grounds where I go for leisure, education or anything else would crack me up.

[gspain]

Its at times like this when I realise how lucky we are down here in the South where sectarianism and discrimination is rare and where everyone is free to express their views and be listened to no matter what their colour or creed is.

I couldn't tell you what religion most of my neighbours are or what their allegiances are for any aspect of their lives and I couldnt care less.

Things might be bad here at the moment but to have to make a choice for fear of discrimination on political or religious grounds where I go for leisure, education or anything else would crack me up.

Agree the way we treat the travelling community should be used as a model around the world in understanding and integrating different cultures.

[SkStu]

Agree the way we treat the travelling community should be used as a model around the world in understanding and integrating different cultures.

come on G - i really dont want to drag this thread off topic so maybe we should start something in the politics forum but travellers have been afforded numerous opportunities in the last 20 years to integrate into "normal" everyday life. They turned their back on most assistance and integration programs to a large extent (and thats putting it nicely).

Ireland is, for the most part, a tolerant and integrationist place.

[ArdeeBhoy]

GS,
I'd agree they're often treated disgracefully, though had my own issues with them so can't judge totally objectively. But it is a current issue, as are some regarding random immigrants, which we all need to continually monitor and ensure people are treated fairly if we can.

Though reckon over the course of time, nationalists and Irish people in general have had more of a raw deal than even them. Though with regards to above, it's unfortunate if any attitudes mirror those that we've had to collectively experience.

And would agree with SS's last sentence above.

[kingdomkerry]

If the IFA are serious about "football for all" they need to change GSTQ and the unofficial NI flag to alternatives which are acceptable to all in the 6 counties. They also need a stadium which is in a neurtal area and not in a loyalist ghetto. Are the IFA and their supporters prepared to do this. Not a hope in hell id say, not even if every single nationalist refused to play for them. Sectarianism is too deep.

[Newryrep]

If the IFA are serious about "football for all" they need to change GSTQ and the unofficial NI flag to alternatives which are acceptable to all in the 6 counties. They also need a stadium which is in a neurtal area and not in a loyalist ghetto. Are the IFA and their supporters prepared to do this. Not a hope in hell id say, not even if every single nationalist refused to play for them. Sectarianism is too deep.

Can I just add the changing the location of the stadium along with changing the anthem, changing the flag to the list of things that will NOT change my opinion of theNorthen Ireland team one iota. For people to harp on how if these things changed nationalists would play for them is quite frankly rubbish.

[kingdomkerry]

Can I just add the changing the location of the stadium along with changing the anthem, changing the flag to the list of things that will NOT change my opinion of theNorthen Ireland team one iota. For people to harp on how if these things changed nationalists would play for them is quite frankly rubbish.

I know it will not change the minds of most nationalists. Im just stating what the IFA need to do if they are to be taken serious about their "football for all" bullsh1te.

[Nedser]

Neither Irish nor UK passport is evidence of eligibility to play for NI. The passport required by the match official is for evidence of identity not eligibility.

As you've repeatedly said, UK (or British) nationality is required for someone to be eligible for NI. Also, every player is required to produce a passport before each game. Given that all players who play for NI must be British, it would not be unreasonable for FIFA to insist that the passport they provide states that their nationality is British. It's actually absurd that they accept a passport that states that the players nationality is "Irish" when in fact the players must hold a different nationality to be eligible. The only reason I can see that they do is because they caved to political pressure from the Irish govt re the unique political situation in NI and made an exception. Again, just another one of the anomalies that epitomises the whole existence of the NI "national" team.

There is no Northern Irish Nationality which entitles a player to be eligible for 2 Associations.

I'm well aware of that - in fact I have pointed out numerous times on this thread that Northern Irish nationality doesn't exist. I'm beginning to think you haven't even read my posts, which is fine, but if not please stop replying to what you incorrectly think I'm saying.

Article 16 refers only to a players nationality allowing him to be eligible for >1 Association. It does not refer to a dual nationality making a player eligible for > 1 Association. The Nationality that applies to Art 16 is British nationality. Under article 15 a British citizen would be eligible for 4 Association, Article 16 defines the eligibility for British natinality in regards to each of the 4 Associations. Irish nationality does not make a player eligible for a British Association. NI is British. The status of NI in the UK has not changed.

Again, if you had actually read my previous post, you would be aware that I agree with the above interpretation of Article 16, and I'm confident that's what FIFA meant. However, Article 16 is not worded clearly, and where there is ambiguity there is room for legal argument. It seems clear that the IFA's case is that Article 16 could in fact be interpreted to apply to anyone who is eligible for 2 associations based on nationality (i.e. even someone who is eligible for two associations because they have 2 nationalities). Just to be absolutely clear in case you aren't willing to go back and read my post properly, I don't agree with that interpretation, but I believe that's what the IFA's case is.

No I have not changed. NI born have an automatic right to Brit or Irish citizenship or both. They still have to do an action in order to exercise that right to be identified as an Irish national (eg ask to be chosen for the FAI), but post GFA they do not have to acquire the citizenship before or while exercising their right to be identified fully as a natural born Irish national (eg application for passport).

Eh, that is a change. Now you're saying the have an automatic right to British or Irish citizenship. That has never been disputed by anyone in this thread AFAIK. That is very different to automatically having both citizenships, which you insisted was the case in at least 2 posts in response to me. You were determined to contradict my statement that they could choose one or the other or both, yet in your post before this one you said pretty much exactly what I said in the first place. You're not in politics are you?

You would be confused if you do not understand article 16 when it states clearly
"A Player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality"

It states nationality, singular, not (dual) nationalities plural. There is no Northern Ireland singular nationality.

Again, I ask you to please go back and read my posts in full before replying.

[DannyInvincible]

This is actually very interesting as there are 2 ways that I can see of interpreting Article 16:

1. It means that if nationality of one country (i.e. UK) entitles you to represent more than one association (i.e. NI, Scotland, Wales or England), then in addition to holding UK nationality, you also have to satisfy one of the conditions in Article 16. I think this is what it means - i.e. it's just to ensure that people with UK nationality aren't automatically entitled to play for 4 different national teams (a la Maik Taylor).

2. It could also be interpreted to mean that if a player has more than one nationality, then he must meet one of the criteria in Article 16 in addition to holding that nationality. In other words, if a player was born in Belfast and holds both Irish and British nationality, then he would only be eligible for ROI if he meets criteria b, c or d in Article 16. I think this is what the IFA are arguing. The sad thing is, they might have a case, as the wording above is not 100% clear.

If the IFA successfully argue that interpretation 2 is correct, then it gets more interesting, as it would mean players born in the North would generally not be eligible for ROI if they hold both British and Irish nationality, but they would be eligible for ROI if they hold Irish nationality only. Geysir insists that everyone born in NI is automatically both British and Irish, whereas others, including myself and Mr Parker, believe they have the right to choose, as that's what the GFA states.

The wording of the GFA is easily available online, but I know that the effect of it is definitely to allow people born in Northern Ireland to claim either British or Irish nationality, or both. So you can be officially recognised as solely Irish, solely British or both British and Irish at the same time.

The important thing, which I think has been pointed out above and leaves me confident and satisfied that we are interpreting the rules correctly is that there is no single nationality which allows a player born in Northern Ireland to play for both Northern Ireland and Ireland. Irish nationality is required to play for Ireland whilst British nationality is presumably required to play for Northern Ireland as well as a relationship with that territory, as per Article 16. Even if one born in Northern Ireland holds both British and Irish nationalities, those are still two distinct nationalities held at the one time. They don't morph to form one single new nationality. If they did, then Article 16 might come into play regarding cases like Gibson. However, as it stands, it need not come into effect as Gibson is perfectly eligible to play under Article 15 with no need for recourse to any other article. Article 15 mentions that it requires the likes of Gibson to hold "permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in [Ireland]". Gibson satisfies this. The reason that brings nationality independent of residence into the equation is due to the Qatar case a few years ago where the association there tried to make eligible a couple of Brazilians who'd been awarded fast-track citizenship after spending a few seasons playing there. Not sure of the exact details but that was the general jist of it.

Israel is another interesting case I've just been thinking about. As far as I know, Israel awards citizenship to any person who can prove Jewish heritage (religious belief?). Does this make any Jew worldwide technically eligible to play for Israel so long as they satisfy its conditions for citizenship?

[geysir]

Eh, that is a change. Now you're saying the have an automatic right to British or Irish citizenship. That has never been disputed by anyone in this thread AFAIK. That is very different to automatically having both citizenships, which you insisted was the case in at least 2 posts in response to me. You were determined to contradict my statement that they could choose one or the other or both, yet in your post before this one you said pretty much exactly what I said in the first place. You're not in politics are you?

Eh no Nedser. You have argued that NI born have a right to choose one or both Nationalities.

I have argued that they have the right to choose which or both to be identified as.
There is the difference. Even after all this discussion you do not understand the difference.
The GFA "recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both"
Birthright is the established fact, the right to be identified as, is a choice.

Birthright as an establish fact, in the constitution/Nationality laws is automatic nationality, Lex Soli.

[DannyInvincible]

Eh no Nedser. You have argued that NI born have a right to choose one or both Nationalities.

I have argued that they have the right to choose which or both to be identified as.
There is the difference. Even after all this discussion you do not understand the difference.

I don't mean to be argumentative as you offered what I believe to be a pretty much correct interpretation of the statutes above but what is the substantive or effectual difference exactly? Birth doesn't foist automatic citizenship upon anyone. It's just something that creates a right. I think we're getting bogged down in semantics or maybe I'm missing something. Northern-borns aren't deemed automatically British until they either decide to revoke that or apply for Irish citizenship. They're accorded the nationality of their parents' choosing upon birth. I was actually born in the south so I'm not sure of the whole procedure, but I don't think I'm incorrect. Is Nedser actually arguing otherwise? I'm not really so sure that he is. :/

[geysir]

I don't mean to be argumentative as you offered what I believe to be a pretty much correct interpretation of the statutes above but what is the substantive or effectual difference exactly? Birth doesn't foist automatic citizenship upon anyone. It's just something that creates a right. I think we're getting bogged down in semantics or maybe I'm missing something. Northern-borns aren't deemed automatically British until they either decide to revoke that or apply for Irish citizenship. They're accorded the nationality of their parents' choosing upon birth. I was actually born in the south so I'm not sure of the whole procedure, but I don't think I'm incorrect. Is Nedser actually arguing otherwise? I'm not really so sure that he is. :/

Well, if you contemplate (imo, the absurdity of) the notion that a person born in Northern Ireland is a non national until that time he /she chooses a nationality, then you can appreciate the difference between,
choosing a nationality and having the right to choose which nationality (or both) they want to be identified as.

Pre GFA according to the Irish nationality act (1955?), a NI born had the birthright to apply for citizenship.
Post GFA, there is no need to apply for citizenship, Irish nationality is a birthright for NI born.
But they can just choose not to be identified as Irish.

The difference has significance in this debate with Nedser but I´d be boring you further by dragging up quotes

[ArdeeBhoy]

Geysir/Nedser(or whoever),
Be interested in your response to my post #397, if so feel so inclined?

[geysir]

[QUOTE=ArdeeBhoy;1332432]

With regards to the North, have family born there. As far as we're all led to believe, it's an issue of choice as to whether they take a Brit.or Irish passport

.
Yes, so far

Unsure if they can have both, but am sure at least one 'side' insists on revoking citizenship of the other, if not both.

They can have both. No need to revoke. The GFA ensures dual nationality as a birthright.

Also been told the only way you can have joint Irish-Brit.citizenship/passport rights is by marriage

For a person born in the North, dual citizenship dual passports is a birthright.
If you asking about the rights of a non Nordie who marries a Nordie, then they can acquire both Irish and British nationality according the Nationality law criteria of each, but of course it not a birthright, it is an acquired nationality.

Though don't know what happens in the case of divorce.

Could be relief.

[DannyInvincible]

Well, if you contemplate (imo, the absurdity of) the notion that a person born in Northern Ireland is a non national until that time he /she chooses a nationality, then you can appreciate the difference between,
choosing a nationality and having the right to choose which nationality (or both) they want to be identified as.

Pre GFA according to the Irish nationality act (1955?), a NI born had the birthright to apply for citizenship.
Post GFA, there is no need to apply for citizenship, Irish nationality is a birthright for NI born.
But they can just choose not to be identified as Irish.

The difference has significance in this debate with Nedser but I´d be boring you further by dragging up quotes

So, are those born in the north considered both British and Irish by default from birth until a decision is made or what? It does seem absurd alright that their nationality would be left in limbo, so to speak, until some decision is made, but then again, Northern Ireland is a bit of an absurd construction... I'm still not so sure what the major distinction is as far as the end result is concerned under the relevant governing nationality laws of "choosing a nationality" and "having the right to choose a nationality they want to be identified as". Both involve a right surely, or is it that you're saying the former imposes an obligation to choose? Either way, there's surely an obligation to make some form of decision. I don't see how someone could go through life as a non-national. And at the end of the day, the choice is still between being officially recognised as Irish, British or as both. It's an obligation to choose at least one of those options. Not that I've seen specific legal instruments dictating such, but i just can't imagine how it could be otherwise. So, in effect, yo have a right of choice within an obligation.

I suppose what I also really want to know is, has this any bearing on the FIFA statutes or how we ought to interpret them?

Possibly I'm just further confusing matters... :P

[geysir]

So, are those born in the north considered both British and Irish by default from birth until a decision is made or what? It does seem absurd alright that their nationality would be left in limbo, so to speak, until some decision is made, but then again, Northern Ireland is a bit of an absurd construction..

Absurd maybe, but not quite as absurd as the concept of Limbo.

. I'm still not so sure what the major distinction is as far as the end result is concerned under the relevant governing nationality laws of "choosing a nationality" and "having the right to choose a nationality they want to be identified as". Both involve a right surely, or is it that you're saying the former imposes an obligation to choose?

A Nordie has dual nationality.
A Southerner (freestater aargh!) has but one nationality.
The Nordie just has one more than the Southerner.
Simple.
The Nordie has not an obligation to choose which one he/she wants to be identified with. They have a right to choose which one (or both) of the nationalities they want to be identifed with.
Should a Nordie want to play for the IFA then they are exercising their right to be identified as a Brit.
Should a Nordie want to play for the FAI, they are exercising their right to be an Irish national.

Either way, there's surely an obligation to make some form of decision.

No obligation, a Nordie is a born dual national. NI is still British, though populated by a dual citizenry.

So, in effect, yo have a right of choice within an obligation.

No obligation, you just have a right to choose which nationality or both you want to be identified with.
´tis but the luxury of dual citizenship by birthright.

I suppose what I also really want to know is, has this any bearing on the FIFA statutes or how we ought to interpret them?

lets just say it´s all good from an FAI perspective and all gloom from an IFA perspective.
From a FIFA perspective, they would have to change article 15 in order to reverse that effect.

[Gather round]

Some interesting points in recent pages.

but then again, Northern Ireland is a bit of an absurd construction...

All countries are human constructs, many show absurdities. The existence of Northern Ireland is utilitarian (basically the least inconvenience to the smallest number). The pre-1920s regime and any notional united Ireland in the future had/ would have an even larger disaffected minority.

I know it will not change the minds of most nationalists. Im just stating what the IFA need to do if they are to be taken serious about their "football for all" bullsh1te

Taken seriously by who? Not you, Dan the Man and Ardee Bhoy on this thread. You think NI shouldn't exist nor have a football team, so what relevance do flags and anthems, or any symbols, or stadium sites, or anything the IFA does have? You presumably aren't going to change your mind. Others both inside and outside already take the FFA improvements seriously.

travellers have been afforded numerous opportunities in the last 20 years to integrate into "normal" everyday life. They turned their back on most assistance and integration programs to a large extent (and thats putting it nicely)...Ireland is, for the most part, a tolerant and integrationist place

Stu, the Traveller community in both Ireland and Britain has suffered systematic discrimination for centuries, with resulting poor levels of health care, education, housing etc. The 2006 census showed that 50% of the community die before age 50. Forget putting it nicely, in both countries we need to do much more for them.

Yes, Ireland is for the most part a tolerant place. Of course I realise you mean the South, but even NI is much more so now than for much of my lifetime. That said, we shouldn't be complacent on either side of the border.

Its at times like this when I realise how lucky we are down here in the South where...everyone is free to express their views and be listened to no matter what their colour or creed is. I couldn't tell you what religion most of my neighbours are or what their allegiances are for any aspect of their lives and I couldnt care less. Things might be bad here at the moment but to have to make a choice for fear of discrimination on political or religious grounds where I go for leisure, education or anything else would crack me up

That's nice, but rest assured if you move to this country we have freedom of expression too, for all the greater political volatility. Segregation in housing, education etc. is something I regret but it's hardly unique to Northern Ireland. Similar situations exist, particularly in border regions in many other countries- Belgium most clearly in western Europe.

It's peculiar the issues the OWC get all hot and bothered about

It isn't. Us getting ****ed off by the Marie Jones play is little different to you (fans, FA, Lord Bonhead Hewson, populist government ministers) throwing a fit of hysterics about concealing a bad goal in St Denis. We felt hard done by, so we sulked. The Anti-Maze protest was a well-organised, well-supported and pretty much successful campagin against some dumb (largely English) politicians planning to spunk hundreds of millions on a vanity project. I'm puzzled why you think on the one hand that we're less agitated by the anthem issue (in reality we aren't, mainstream media and web boards are currently full of it), then say it would make little difference anyway. Although of course to many it wouldn't make much difference simply because it never has. It's one tuneless, old-fashioned dirge about fighting foreigners compared with another. Little difference to many.

Yes, the NI team is mainly supported by unionists. That doesn't mean its appeal to anyone else is merely a veneeer. All are welcome.