Player eligibility row

[ArdeeBhoy]

You are confusing us GR!

Alan Kernaghan qualified for us because he could get an Irish passport which was the rule at the time. He had 4 grandparents born on the island of Ireland and 1 would have been enough.
partition had nothing to do with it. Any NI born player or who had a parent or grandparent from NI was eligible for us at the time.

Sounds like they should never have changed from that rule!
Didn't AK play in a match against the North, attracting particular vitriol from the usual suspects, for being a 'traitor' ?

[co. down green]

I found another player we can poach. The name McCullough suggests he could be Protestant or Catholic, but apparently once we get our teeth into these lads they are completely powerless against our seduction attempts.

http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/Ma...-97608064.html

Another one to keep our eyes on

http://www.clarets-mad.co.uk/news/tm...44/index.shtml

[gspain]

Cheers for the information. If that was the rule then so, are you aware of what was preventing us from calling up other players with northern roots or even just players from the north up until 1998, seemingly? A gentlemen's agreement or something?

In the 1950s the FAI went to FIFA to stop the IFA from picking southern born players. There was most likely a gentleman's agreement between the 2 associaitions agreed but that is long since forgotten. We did pick some NI born players for the Iberia tour in 1946 and a handful before the war.

The reality up until the late 1980's is that we would have been seen as the 2nd choice. NI had qualified for world cups, won Home Championships etc. Any NI born player
was eligible then though. There has been a huge increase in support from north of the border in the last 20 years and this naturally leads players to look south as well. There were very few block bookers or on the waiting list from NI 20 years ago but now there is a significant percentage of the home and away support from north of the border. Anecdotally you can tell that from the accents as well at games home and away. We have also been much more successful for most of the past 23 years than NI. Success does make a huge difference.

Derry City joining the LoI would also have a big impact on Derry. Players would be in the FAI system etc however that does not explain Lurgan or Belfast or other places.

[gspain]

Didn't AK play in a match against the North, attracting particular vitriol from the usual suspects, for being a 'traitor' ?

He played in the famous night at Windsor when we qualified for USA 94. He got dogs abuse being called a traitor and a Lundy. He played very well that night although we were never really under pressure.

He then lost his place to our future world class star that Liverpool paid loads of money for -- Phil Babb. For a few months in 1994 we thought we had the next Paul McGrath.

Alan got a few more caps after 1993 but he was never a regular again.

[Predator]

The reality up until the late 1980's is that we would have been seen as the 2nd choice.

My father and his buddies would disagree.

[dantheman]

Another one to keep our eyes on

http://www.clarets-mad.co.uk/news/tm...44/index.shtml

McRory Cup player? Shay McCartan from 95% taig Newry?
This lad's a super-Mick!!

[EastTerracer]

Alan Kernaghan qualified for us because he could get an Irish passport which was the rule at the time. He had 4 grandparents born on the island of Ireland and 1 would have been enough.
partition had nothing to do with it. Any NI born player or who had a parent or grandparent from NI was eligible for us at the time.

There is actually a partition element to this but it no longer applies. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 reinforced the rights of anyone born in the North to Irish citizenship (as enshrined in the constitution) but for some reason section 7.1 of the Act formally withheld automatic citizenship from those born in Northern Ireland, requiring registration “pending the re-integration of the national territory". However, this was rendered irrelevant for most Northern born nationalists in 1956 by section 6.2 and section 6.4 providing, at the extreme, automatic citizenship for “every living person who is the grandchild of aperson born in any part of the thirty-two counties prior to 6th December, 1922”.

To summarise, having established the Irish republic in 1948, and under pressure about the territorial claim, the Act did say Northern-born people couldn't get "automatic" citizenship but, if their grandparents were born before the country was partitioned, then they could get "automatic" citizenship. This effectively gave everyone citizenship at the time (if they wanted it). This was the situation until the passing of the Good Friday agreement in 1998 but it only really became an issue in the 1970s. If we assume that most people's grandparents are 50 years older than they are then it wasn't until 1971-ish that the first Northern born people who didn't meet this criteria were born. Kernaghan qualified for an Irish passport under this rule. Its's doubtful if Darron Gibson's grandparents were born before 1921 but by the time he came along this was no longer a requirement and the legislation had changed.

Thankfully the Good Friday Agreement allowed the Irish Government to amend the qualification to make it clear that anyone who's grandparents were born on the Island of Ireland (regardless of when) automatically qualified for Irish citizenship which was always the intention of the Irish constitution and Irish citizenship law but which had been complicated by the 1956 Act.

[DannyInvincible]

Odd question. I mean, as I've explained repeatedly, there are two nations in Ireland, both with the word 'Ireland' in their official names. Not that I'm as hidebound by those as some on this thread.

I don't want to labour the point too much and appear like I'm trying to strangle you into submission - I ask because I'm interested in the whole idea of identity and such - but, doesn't that amount to an explicit acknowledgement of a distinction you were previously denying when you suggested we were all as Irish as one another; the implication of what you said, surely, being that we're all part of one and the same Irish nation.

Also, just one more question; is your idea of Irishness a national identity on its own, separate terms or do you consider your particular idea of Irishness to be a sub-set, if you will, of your sense of Britishness?

As I see things, there is the Irish nation as channelled through the modern Irish state. Or maybe it's the Irish Nation, even. This amounts to a civic or legal recognition of Irishness. Then comes the "state of mind" - the sense of Irish ethnicity or cultural heritage - as manifested by, say, but not necessarily exclusively, by the Irish diaspora around the world. That's a more vague concept, so much more difficult to quantify. And possibly there's something else that, if I'm not mistaken, posits itself as a sub-category of Britishness. I think I would actually have a bit of difficulty viewing that as Irish at all, which is why "Northern Irish" or something like that might be more accurate a description. In my opinion, of course.

As far as I know, I've never met him at a game or otherwise. I'm not even sure what the acronym stands for. Finn Harps top boy? Fc*king hate the Blues? Faroese have tremendous beers?

"Finn Harps True Blue", I'm guessing. If memory serves me correctly, he uses a Finn Harps jersey as his avatar on this site and his little bio on OWC refers to him supporting "the team west of 'Stute still in business". Clever, but out-dated by a few months.

No. as above I don't care where his Da's from. I'm irritated only really because he played in eight adult internationals for NI before changing his mind.

And what for, say, the French-born Algerian internationals with France under-21 caps? FIFA only recently eased the rules for the direct purpose of benefiting such players.

Really? I assumed you were joking and replied in kind. In practice such training camps would be seen as a provocation by the IFA and NI fans, resulting in extended howls of anguish. Whereas camps in say, Preston, Pontefract or Mansfield, probably wouldn't even be noticed, let alone commented on, in the English media.

Well, I mean, I'd expect the FAI to seek consent from the IFA first if they were going to proceed with such an unusual project, but it's not something I'm taking so seriously that I'd campaign for it as a "solution" or "settlement" to all of this.

There's one basic reason, surely? They don't identify with/ support/ want to play for the NI teams. Apart from the ones who'd already played for those teams, maybe. But ultimately if they don't want to play, you can't force them. Bye.

Of course. I wasn't overlooking that rather crucial one. The IFA seem reluctant to acknowledge it, however, which only allows tension to fester as it gives the inflexibles an unreasonable sense of hope that they might get their way. Unfortunately, Worthington's comments, for example, betray a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the nationalist mindset when he says things like, "I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to play for their country..." in relation to the likes of Gibson and Duffy. What I am suggesting really is that the IFA should just accept the reality and get on with their own business; maybe even encourage their supporters to do so as well in the interests of everyone getting along all fine and dandy.

Indeed. But is anyone seriously suggesting it? Sounds like a straw man to me, introduced only to prolong/ exaggerate the whole sorry mess.

No seriousness intended in the slightest with that proposal, nor was I trying to suggest that anyone had been arguing for it. Of course there's no indication that anything of the sort might happen, but, say, for the sake of argument, if a few hundred nationalist players decided to switch overnight and the IFA kicked up enough of a fuss about it to have the FAI feel guilty enough or something to agree to sanction no further switches. That would amount to a threshold or upper cap system, in essence, which I believe would be thoroughly unfair. It was just another way of me saying that, under all circumstances, all northern-born Irish nationals must be equally entitled to represent Ireland, save for maybe an exception like having played for Northern Ireland into adulthood or something, as you propose. But generally, if something's right in principle for one case, it logically follows that it's right for all cases. Therefore, appeals to halt the practice because a stream might turn into a torrent are logically void. The practice is either wrong in the first place or it isn't.

Agreed, good luck with that. Although of course they might edit or truncate it. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the Sunday Business Post about some aspect of the Peace Procession, and persuaded my mate (a sub-editor on the paper) to ensure it appeared in print. In passing, I chided their editorial policy of invariably describing Northern Ireland as "the North". Which of course then appeared in print as "Please stop referring to the North as the North, it's childish".

Ha, I'd be wary of having my thoughts on the matter butchered and misrepresented. I wonder how much discretion they'd take to censor/amend it... Presumably, they'll do what they like with it. They don't have to even publish it after all. Nevertheless, I might work the post into a letter format and e-mail them later just to see what becomes of it. Could be an interesting experiment in itself.

In the 1950s the FAI went to FIFA to stop the IFA from picking southern born players. There was most likely a gentleman's agreement between the 2 associaitions agreed but that is long since forgotten.

Any idea when it would have ceased to apply and what might have prompted this? I've mentioned this already during my earlier exchanges with 'EalingGreen', and I don't know if you saw what I'd written, but, from what I understand, the "gentlemen's agreement" appeared to be completely one-sided in that it didn't seem to bind the IFA with any responsibilities or restrictions given the fact FIFA had already halted their practice of calling up players born south of the border in 1950. To me, the GFA seems to represent a possible turning point - in mindset at least - although maybe I'm way off, it's timing was pure coincidental and the initiating of sanctioning player switches was due more to Brian Kerr's astuteness at the time, as mentioned. Although, I find it hard to imagine that the FAI would have been pig ignorant to the situation until Kerr came along. I know we're talking about the FAI here, but could that really have been at all possible? Cheers for the information again, by the way. Interesting stuff.

[Gather round]

doesn't that amount to an explicit acknowledgement of a distinction you were previously denying when you suggested we were all as Irish as one another; the implication of what you said, surely, being that we're all part of one and the same Irish nation

It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.

Also, just one more question; is your idea of Irishness a national identity on its own, separate terms or do you consider your particular idea of Irishness to be a sub-set, if you will, of your sense of Britishness?

I thnk of myself as 100% British and 100% Irish. They don't contradict, neither is a sub-set of the other, neither dominates my sense of identity. Not sure if that fully answers your question?

And possibly there's something else that, if I'm not mistaken, posits itself as a sub-category of Britishness. I think I would actually have a bit of difficulty viewing that as Irish at all, which is why "Northern Irish" or something like that might be more accurate a description. In my opinion, of course

You are mistaken- see above, I don't recognise one as a sub-set of the other. As far as I can make out, your difficulty follows from the ingrained sense that one Irishness isn't merely different, but superior to the other. Northern Irish is quite accurate as you say, but it isn't any MORE acurate than Irish as a description of me.

And what for, say, the French-born Algerian internationals with France under-21 caps? FIFA only recently eased the rules for the direct purpose of benefiting such players

The same, I'm consistent. I don't think FIFA should have changed the rules, nor that French U-21 internationals should then be able to play for Algeria. In practice, I suspect few in France were bothered, but if the trade had been the other way, the Algerians might have been. If Zidane had been capped by France after Algeria, say.

Unfortunately, Worthington's comments, for example, betray a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the nationalist mindset

I can see that. Without wanting to sound like Peter Mandelson or compare the IFA to the West Wing or something, Nige and Dogbum should keep their comments to the usual post-match cliches. Leave more fraught issues to a press spokesman. Incidentally, isn't Worthington closely related to Brendan Rodgers, who presumably could have advised him as you have?

say, for the sake of argument, if a few hundred nationalist players decided to switch overnight and the IFA kicked up enough of a fuss about it to have the FAI feel guilty enough or something to agree to sanction no further switches

Heh. A few hundred might be spreading the talent pool a bit thinly. If every nationalist professional footballer from Northern Ireland simply refused to play (what your notional example really means, since clearly they aren't all going to challenge for places in the Republic's teams), I imagine the FAI would simply pick the best ones and ignore the others. While the IFA would sulk and maybe scale down aspirations to staying ahead of Estonia rather than challenging Serbia. I can't see that any quota could apply, other than the practical one of there only being 11 places available in any football team.

[janeymac]

GR - a couple of questions for you!

1) What are the differences between the two Irish nations
2) Can you give me an example of another place/country that is in a similar situation (for example, are there two Korean nations sharing the same peninsula?)
3) which Irish nation does Darren Gibson belong to?

[The Fly]

It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.

Firstly, apologies for interjecting.

Secondly, there is only one internationally recognised Irish nation, that being the Republic of Ireland, or Ireland - to give it it's official title. Northern Ireland is not internationally recognised as a nation. It is a constituent part of the United Kingdom, which is, a nation.

Thirdly, whilst you may perceive Northern Ireland to be a nation, and are perfectly entitled to do so, by the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a nation - it isn't one!

[Charlie Darwin]

You're confusing nation with state. Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions, but it's not a nationstate in the sense that the Republic is.

[The Fly]

You're confusing nation with state. Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions, but it's not a nationstate in the sense that the Republic is.

That's not correct. A nation, by common definition, is 'a group of people who share a common history, culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own government.' A 'state' can be used to refer to the government of a nation or country, or, the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.

The term 'nationstate', is used specifically to refer to a sovereign state where the geographic boundaries of the political state, and that of the native ethnic population, largely coincide, thus creating a sovereign entity with a largely homogeneous group of people, who share a feeling of common nationality.

However.....I do appreciate, that in casual language, all of these terms have become somewhat interchangeable. That being said, Northern Ireland, whilst being equally Irish as GR pointed out, is still, not a nation.

[Charlie Darwin]

That's not correct. A nation, by common definition, is 'a group of people who share a common history, culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own government.'

How is that not what I just said?

[The Fly]

You stated that Northern Ireland would be a accepted as a nation by 'most or all definitions,' I simply provided evidence to the contrary.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm really confused now. Which of those doesn't Northern Ireland fall under?

[DannyInvincible]

It only appears implicitly thus to you, because you won't/ can't accept that there are two Irish nations, both of which are equally Irish. Whereas to me this seems self-evident from lifelong experience.

I'll hold judgment and await your response to 'janeymac'.

In practice, I suspect few in France were bothered, but if the trade had been the other way, the Algerians might have been. If Zidane had been capped by France after Algeria, say.

This is true, although I don't think you can have one rule for one and another rule for another. But, you're sworn to consistency so you're pretty much saying that anyway.

I can see that. Without wanting to sound like Peter Mandelson or compare the IFA to the West Wing or something, Nige and Dogbum should keep their comments to the usual post-match cliches. Leave more fraught issues to a press spokesman.

Certainly. I similarly cringe when I open an article to find Delaney's latest on matters.

Incidentally, isn't Worthington closely related to Brendan Rodgers, who presumably could have advised him as you have?

Wasn't aware of who Brendan Rodgers actually was, but I'm sure Worthington could have, assuming you're referring to the decision of his son to play for Ireland. Obviously Worthington's not a family man either so; something else to hold against him then...

I can't see that any quota could apply, other than the practical one of there only being 11 places available in any football team.

This is true and will probably ensure that the system will keep itself in check, if you will. That's a counter-argument to the over-the-top "opening of the floodgates" claim.

2) Can you give me an example of another place/country that is in a similar situation (for example, are there two Korean nations sharing the same peninsula?)

The Korean example is an interesting one as the populations of the two states, to the best of my knowledge, are generally viewed together as being culturally, ethnically and linguistically homogeneous - to almost an extreme, especially the rather isolated population of North Korea - and, thus, are commonly viewed as being part of the one Korean nation. The two distinct states appear to exist in direct "competition" with one another as counter-claimants to the concept of nation-statehood in that both claim to be the rightful representative of or channel for the Korean nation.

Northern Ireland would be accepted as a nation by most or all definitions

You're correct in that it's certainly not a nation-state, but even the notion that it represents a nation is open to severe challenge. Northern Ireland is split right down the middle by two groups who view themselves as politically distinct (one sees its national interests channelled through the Irish state, while the other see its interests channelled through the British state), religiously distinct (along Catholic and Protestant lines), linguistically distinct (at least, historically, between Irish/Gaelic speakers and English speakers; maybe even Ulster-Scots speakers, to be generous) and culturally distinct (both celebrate different folklore, literature, art, historical references, music, et cetera). I would suggest there is an element of ethnic difference there too; on the one side you have Gaelic and Celtic racial consciousness while the other "homogeneous" group views itself in Scots and Anglo terms, if I'm not mistaken. How accurate these self-portraits actually are and how genuine any genetic difference is is open to question given the significant genetic cross-over on these islands. The majority of the Irish population possess more in common genetically with the Basque people than any strictly Celtic people, for example. But how one could consider an entity such as Northern Ireland as a nation is puzzling to me. Unless you're referring to Northern Ireland as the nation of people who view themselves as distinct from what is commonly accepted as the Irish nation; with the former aforementioned group in each instance above falling under that "Irish nation" umbrella.

[Charlie Darwin]

You're correct in that it's certainly not a nation-state, but even the notion that it represents a nation is open to severe challenge. Northern Ireland is split right down the middle by two groups who view themselves as politically distinct (one sees its national interests channelled through the Irish state, while the other see its interests channelled through the British state), religiously distinct (along Catholic and Protestant lines), linguistically distinct (at least, historically, between Irish/Gaelic speakers and English speakers; maybe even Ulster-Scots speakers, to be generous) and culturally distinct (both celebrate different folklore, literature, art, historical references, music, et cetera). I would suggest there is an element of ethnic difference there too; on the one side you have Gaelic and Celtic racial consciousness while the other "homogeneous" group views itself in Scots and Anglo terms, if I'm not mistaken. How accurate these self-portraits actually are and how genuine any genetic difference is is open to question given the significant genetic cross-over on these islands. The majority of the Irish population possess more in common genetically with the Basque people than any strictly Celtic people, for example. But how one could consider an entity such as Northern Ireland as a nation is puzzling to me. Unless you're referring to Northern Ireland as the nation of people who view themselves as distinct from what is commonly accepted as the Irish nation; with the former aforementioned group in each instance above falling under that "Irish nation" umbrella.

Well, that's the core problem - in order to define a nation you have to assign objective characteristics to something that's very subjective on a personal level.

You're right to point out the internal differences, but those exist almost everywhere, though rarely to such extremes. Try to think of it from the perspective of somebody who's neither Irish nor British: what separates NI people from ROI people and from mainland British people?

They do have a unique shared history; they do have a unique linguistic background (there are certain words and phrases that can mark you out as being from one community, but again it's a unique situation); they do have a distinct culture (where else in the world do two fractious communities make a point of walking down each other's streets in fancy dress?); there are ethnic similarities and differences, but those are relatively unimportant in this part of the world.

It's not a perfect science - social sciences never are - but the essential point which Gather Round has skirted around is that nationality is not a zero-sum game. He can be British and Irish and Northern Irish and those can all be legitimate identities because they are all clearly distinct from one another. Of the three, I'd argue that Northern Irish is probably the most legitimate for people born north of the border, but I'm sure plenty would disagree.

I'd also take issue with your point about political preferences: does voting for Sinn Fein really indicate that a person sees his interests channeled through the Irish state? In the current context, it could be argued that a Catholic voting for Sinn Fein merely wants to see his community's day-to-day interests represented on an equitable basis.

[DannyInvincible]

I'd also take issue with your point about political preferences: does voting for Sinn Fein really indicate that a person sees his interests channeled through the Irish state? In the current context, it could be argued that a Catholic voting for Sinn Fein merely wants to see his community's day-to-day interests represented on an equitable basis.

I suppose it's hard to know what exactly it indicates without asking them for specifics as to their reasoning, but there's probably a fair amount of truth in what you say. You'll understand I was speaking in very general terms, as you find yourself having to when dealing with the social sciences, culture and group patterns/behaviour. I probably was looking at it on a more long-term basis as well where it is generally recognised that the nationalist community sees its future in joining up with the Irish state some day. Whether it's realistic or not, it's the general aspiration.

Edit to add: It also happens to be Sinn Féin's raison d'être, of which surely all their voters will undoubtedly be very aware. But that's not to reject your point. I acknowledge that for some, a vote for Sinn Féin simply amounts to a vote for day-to-day nationalist interests, rather than being as part of a long-term strategy or whatever you'd want to call it.

[The Fly]

Well, that's the core problem - in order to define a nation you have to assign objective characteristics to something that's very subjective on a personal level.

Those 'objective characteristics,' are what have become, the commonly accepted determinants of nationhood. If anything else, as there is little or no aspiration to Northern Irish nationhood from within Northern Ireland, one can say with confidence that it is not a nation. To add further foundation to this, the percentage of the population in Northern Ireland, claiming or professing a 'Northern Irish' identity has remained historically low.

They do have a unique shared history;

Could you provide further explanation for this Charlie?

they do have a unique linguistic background (there are certain words and phrases that can mark you out as being from one community, but again it's a unique situation)

You are referring to slang, not language, in the above reply.

Again, Northern Ireland does not have it's own distinct, unique, indigenous language. There is no Northern Irish language, which stands direct in contrast to the other three constituent parts that make up the United Kingdom.

; they do have a distinct culture (where else in the world do two fractious communities make a point of walking down each other's streets in fancy dress?); there are ethnic similarities and differences, but those are relatively unimportant in this part of the world.

Despite protestations from some quarters, the orange tradition does provide Northern Ireland with a cultural aspect almost unique to itself, regardless of how divisive it may be.

I do feel though, that one would struggle to name many further cultural traditions in addition to 'orangeism.'

I do also have to point out a significant inaccuracy in your post, and state that it is only one community that makes a point of marching down the other's streets in fancy dress. (Unless you are referring to a gay pride march! )

It's not a perfect science - social sciences never are - but the essential point which Gather Round has skirted around is that nationality is not a zero-sum game. He can be British and Irish and Northern Irish and those can all be legitimate identities because they are all clearly distinct from one another.

I agree. 'Gather Round', or anyone else for that matter, is perfectly entitled to profess any identity they so wish, whether that be Irish, British, Northern Irish or Jedi Knight.

Of the three, I'd argue that Northern Irish is probably the most legitimate for people born north of the border, but I'm sure plenty would disagree.

Not that anyone is strictly bound by it, but I do find it funny that the Good Friday Agreement makes no mention of either a Northern Irish nationality, or identity, in regards to the constitutional issues it addresses:

Constitutional Issues

The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish
Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-
Irish Agreement, they will:

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both
British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would
not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.