Player eligibility row

[seanfhear]

Since the Good Friday Agreement I believe that it is unfair to force anyone that does not want to play for the Orangemen controlled IFA.

There are many Orangemen at the helm of the IFA and I do not believe that people from such an organisation should be in such positions if they are genuine about attracting players from all sections of the populace in NI.

There are lots of reasons why people not from an Orange Order backround would not want to play for the IFA.

I would suggest that the IFA put their own house in order before searching for other scapegoats to explain why players do not want to play for them.

[geysir]

UK citizenship doesn't dictate that everyone born in Northern Ireland is a British national, so I'm not sure where that apparent underpinning originates. British nationality isn't foisted upon anyone against their will. The oh-so-tolerant Owen must surely grasp this. British nationality law makes specific provision for those born in Northern Ireland to be officially recognised as Irish nationals, as opposed to British nationals.

You are missing a point here.
British Nationality Law only defines British Nationality and that part of it which is relevant to NI is British nationality by birthright within the UK. There is no mention about dual citizenry for Nordie folk. The Brit nationality law was not affected by the GFA. By birth a Nordie is a UK citizen. This is still an indisputable fact.
The GFA (accepted democratically in NI, not foisted upon NI nor imposed as a result of an act of irredentism by the Republic) changed that to two nationalities, a dual nationality but leaving it wide open to which nationality you want to be identified by.
The GFA only called for a constitutional change to the Irish constitution. It was enough for it to be accepted by a referendum in the North for it to be legal tender there.

[third policeman]

Nice try, it's a good slogan. If largely meaningless because

a) nationalists aren't anywhere near a majority in Northern Ireland- there's only one real issue, a repeated border poll which they keep losing

b) any notional united Ireland would simply replace a smaller disaffected nationalist minority with a larger equally disaffected unionist one. Which would be neither equitable, nor likely acceptable to many voters, commentators and politicians in the South.

Suggest you re-read my post. this was not an argument (or even a slogan) it was a piece of alternative "spin" and therefore obviously ironic.

[DannyInvincible]

You are missing a point here.
British Nationality Law only defines British Nationality and that part of it which is relevant to NI is British nationality by birthright within the UK. There is no mention about dual citizenry for Nordie folk. The Brit nationality law was not affected by the GFA. By birth a Nordie is a UK citizen. This is still an indisputable fact.
The GFA (accepted democratically in NI, not foisted upon NI nor imposed as a result of an act of irredentism by the Republic) changed that to two nationalities, a dual nationality but leaving it wide open to which nationality you want to be identified by.
The GFA only called for a constitutional change to the Irish constitution. It was enough for it to be accepted by a referendum in the North for it to be legal tender there.

Can British nationality not be renounced then? It was my understanding the the GFA enabled northern-borns to assume just Irish citizenship, but maybe I'm mistaken. :/

[DannyInvincible]

I think I get what you're saying now, geysir. At last. :P Hopefully...

Is the following correct?

British nationality is the default position from birth. Irish nationality can be assumed also if the wish is there, but it is not automatic. If someone assumes Irish nationality, they are then dual citizens of the UK and Ireland. British citizenship cannot be renounced, so these individuals technically still remain a British citizen as far as officialdom is concerned but have the right not to identify themselves as such and, instead, be recognised as Irish.

I've had a look at this and I think that seems to be the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norther...p_and_identity

As regards the eligibility debate, it shoots any hope of the IFA's case being taken seriously out of the water.

[geysir]

Eh not quite but you are getting there
Nordies have British Citizenship by birth in the UK.
Irish citizenship for Nordies is an automatic birthright entitlement since the GFA.
It is that birthright entitlement that makes it a Dual citizenship by any known criteria.

What you refer to as a wish, is in fact just the freedom to choose which they want to be identified as.
The dual nationality exists before the wish and still exists after the wish is made.
Even if a Nordie only exercises his right to be identified as a Brit, he is still a dual citizen by virtue of the constitutional acceptance of the GFA by the people of NI.


Afaiaa (but not certain), British citizenship can be renounced.

[DannyInvincible]

Let me try again.

Are you saying then that the default nationality upon birth is a dual nationality? That anyone born in Northern Ireland is officially deemed British and Irish upon birth, and can later decide by which to be identified despite still officially possessing both?

Edit: Or, possessing the right to exercise both, even.

[DannyInvincible]

None of the following has anything to do with football and I've been mulling over whether or not to post it, but then, this thread has been riddled with political debate from its very outset. Either way, you can skip over it if you wish just as easily as I can submit it in order to respond to a previous post from 'Gather round', so all's fair...

I don't think it does. It's just a statement of the obvious. Northern Ireland is politically volatile largely because it's a disputed border region, like many elsewhere. Abuses in its political system, which I acknowledge, are similarly reflected elsewhere. So neither uniquely bad nor clearly worse in scale as you seem to be suggesting.

Well, sure, but the Western world - the "cradle of democracy" - is, by and large, a stable "entity" with the exception of a few anomalies where a description as "civilised" might even demand explanation, one of which is Northern Ireland, a constituent part of a supposed beacon of liberal parliamentary democracy (albeit with a now-largely-honourary monarchic twist). I'm not trying to position the absurdity of Northern Ireland on any relative scale of severity compared to other conflicts and border disputes throughout Europe, nor would I be so insulting and ignorant to suggest it equates to historical travesties such as the Holocaust. What I don't think you can do, however, is casually dismiss it as if the particular absurdity that has been Northern Ireland was a direct and natural consequence (or quirk) of some genuine attempt to implement liberal democracy in line with the establishment of most other modern European states.

Partition basically sought to achieve a compromise end to the nationalist war of independence and unionist refual to accept home rule. It resulted in close to 90% of the population of Ireland remaining on their preferred side of the border. A much higher figure than either of the likely alternatives would have achieved. So utilitarian, as I said.

A compromise on the oppressor's terms, of course.

They may have found themselves on a "preferred side of the border", but it doesn't mean they all agreed or were happy with the imposition of such a border, nor did their preference for being on one side of it, as opposed to being on the other – because it was the best of two bad options - somehow validate it.

Really? I wonder why that was. Might it just be that the model for granting independence to India or colonies in Africa or the far East- thousands of miles away and where the colonists were a tiny fraction of the population- wasn't likely to work in what became Northern Ireland, with its large and localised unionist bloc visible just across the channel? Anyway, it wasn't a colony in the 1920s. Maybe in the 1620s.

As far as the morality of it is concerned, why would Ireland's geographical proximity to Britain matter at all? The island could be in the middle of the Pacific or on Britain's doorstep. Distance from the "heart of the empire" is irrelevant when making a moral judgment on the legitimacy of Britain's imperial conquests and the maintenance of such ties. Algeria was as close to France as much of peripheral Europe with a significant settler population. It was granted a plebiscite as a whole, which made sense as this was the only Algerian entity recognisable and accepted as a traditional unit. Zimbabwe had a planted settler population who fiercely objected to independence, but still, independence was granted. Possibly, the reason full independence wasn't granted to Ireland was simply logistical convenience due to the fact that geographical proximity made it easier to maintain the "Union" through greater physical force (or threat thereof) and entrench the myth that Ireland was more than just the equivalent of a colony.

“Colony”, “imperial acquisition”, “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, whatever... A label isn't going to erase experience, memory and consciousness.

On the other hand, being kicked off a discussion board 's hardly the worst humans rights abuse. Get over it, or just re-register.

Indeed, but it doesn't mean I ought to not find it a bit annoying and frustrating when I'm trying to engage in a discussion completely seriously only to met with accusations of trolling. Further, it's depressing to see such an apparent fear of dialogue and thirst to suppress it exist in this day and age, even if it is Northern Ireland! It's indicative of a mindset that exercises what it believes to be tolerance with an iron fist. Plus, I'd only be breaking the rules "again" if I re-registered, wouldn't I?

[Gather round]

Either way, you can skip over it if you wish just as easily as I can submit it in order to respond to a previous post from 'Gather round', so all's fair...

Reply by PM

[ArdeeBhoy]

It resulted in close to 90% of the population of Ireland remaining on their preferred side of the border. A much higher figure than either of the likely alternatives would have achieved. So utilitarian, as I said.

Only as it conveniently matches up to the dogma of unionism and being tied to Britain's pursestrings!
And what DI said on the subject.

Do you really think that majority discrimination as in Northern Ireland didn't exist anywhere else? That would be really bizarre. Abuses were bad enough in their own right without you needing to pretend they were on a par with the Holocaust or the Cultural Revolution, or whatever. Get a grip.

One might suggest your own grip on reality is pretty doubtful if we forget about various events in Irish history which have brought us to where we are today. Or perhaps you might like to read up more on the subject??

Might it just be that the model for granting independence to India or colonies in Africa or the far East- thousands of miles away and where the colonists were a tiny fraction of the population- wasn't likely to work in what became Northern Ireland, with its large and localised unionist bloc visible just across the channel? Anyway, it wasn't a colony in the 1920s. Maybe in the 1620s.

Er, it's a colony Now!
And again refer you to DI's answer.

Ardee Bhoy can advise, his (genuinely) unique blend of semi-coherent sectarian nonsense.

If you say so. As opposed to a brand of tedious hypocrisy and pomposity, with no interest in any change to the 'status quo'.

a) nationalists aren't anywhere near a majority in Northern Ireland- there's only one real issue, a repeated border poll which they keep losing

b) any notional united Ireland would simply replace a smaller disaffected nationalist minority with a larger equally disaffected unionist one. Which would be neither equitable, nor likely acceptable to many voters, commentators and politicians in the South.

Except they're a minority in their own country thanks to the gerrymandering machinations of the the British state. And if the concept of a united Ireland fills them with such dread, I'm sure that very same state would welcome them with open arms.

[The Fly]

There is an interesting piece in The Sunday Times, by Paul Rowan, regarding this issue.

His article confirms the switching of Daniel Kearns, West Ham, but he also states that Carl Magnay, Chelsea centre-half and NI under 21 international, has joined him.

Magnay won the SKY TV's Football Icon, which earned him a traineeship at Chelsea. He was born in Gateshead but has grandparents, it is believed, from Derry, which allowed him to play for NI.

According to the article...........he shares an apartment in South West London with Chelsea midfielder Conor Clifford, who encouraged him to make the switch.

Steve Beaglehole, NI under 21 manager, on Magnay, "It's very disappointing..................I spoke to Carl before he was due to play against San Marino a couple of weeks ago and he said that he didn't have the passion to play for Northern Ireland. He said he was English, and could only play for England. I suspected that he had been contacted by the Republic, but he denied that was the case and if he does play for them I will be most disappointed that he wasn't open with me."

He concludes his piece by stating that there are a number of other players thinking of making a switch.

We'll have to wait for official confirmation..........but, interesting times ahead.

[geysir]

Let me try again.

Are you saying then that the default nationality upon birth is a dual nationality? That anyone born in Northern Ireland is officially deemed British and Irish upon birth, and can later decide by which to be identified despite still officially possessing both?

Edit: Or, possessing the right to exercise both, even.

That's pretty much it.
Thinking about it, probably a better term to use is 'dual citizenship' at birth.
And that you understand the dual citizenship does not impose a (unwanted) national identity.

[Predator]

Very interesting about Magnay. He's 21 isn't he? Says he's a centre half, but I think he was moved out to left full in order to accommodate Shane Duffy in a NI U21 fixture against Portugal, so maybe that's another option at left back?

Don't know much about Daniel Kearns, but didn't he declare months ago?.

[Predator]

He concludes his piece by stating that there are a number of other players thinking of making a switch.

We'll have to wait for official confirmation..........but, interesting times ahead.

Any names?

[ArdeeBhoy]

There is an interesting piece in The Sunday Times, by Paul Rowan, regarding this issue.

His article confirms the switching of Daniel Kearns, West Ham, but he also states that Carl Magnay, Chelsea centre-half and NI under 21 international, has joined him.

Magnay won the SKY TV's Football Icon, which earned him a traineeship at Chelsea. He was born in Gateshead but has grandparents, it is believed, from Derry, which allowed him to play for NI.

According to the article...........he shares an apartment in South West London with Chelsea midfielder Conor Clifford, who encouraged him to make the switch.

Steve Beaglehole, NI under 21 manager, on Magnay, "It's very disappointing..................I spoke to Carl before he was due to play against San Marino a couple of weeks ago and he said that he didn't have the passion to play for Northern Ireland. He said he was English, and could only play for England. I suspected that he had been contacted by the Republic, but he denied that was the case and if he does play for them I will be most disappointed that he wasn't open with me."

He concludes his piece by stating that there are a number of other players thinking of making a switch.

We'll have to wait for official confirmation..........but, interesting times ahead.

That was also on our favourite MB, claiming they were defecting, FFS. And that this was now a 'flood'.

[The Fly]

Any names?

No names yet. Though, if there are indeed more 'switches' to come, I imagine we'll be hearing about it quite soon.

[Mr_Parker]

No names yet. Though, if there are indeed more 'switches' to come, I imagine we'll be heaing about it quite soon.

Should I private message you this time?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Any names?

And see you're getting a hard time from 'our friends' in the North, assuming that's you on there?

[co. down green]

Very interesting about Magnay. He's 21 isn't he? Says he's a centre half, but I think he was moved out to left full in order to accommodate Shane Duffy in a NI U21 fixture against Portugal, so maybe that's another option at left back?

Don't know much about Daniel Kearns, but didn't he declare months ago?.

Magnay was 21 in January, so i presume the new rule that allows players over the age of 21 to change associations, (if they have not played at senior level) kicks in. The same FIFA rule change that came too late for Niall McGinn, thus tying him to the North for the rest of his career.
I Believe Daniel Kearns approached the FAI over nine months ago.

Interesting article in today’s Northern edition of the Sunday Mirror about Lee Hodson, a Watford born player with a granny born in Belfast. The article states the IFA approached Watford and the players, including Hodson, at the Milk Cup tournament to see if any of them had any linkage to the North. It would seem that IFA officials use the Milk cup tournament to approach young kids and try and persuade them to play with the North.

Nothing contravening FIFA rules in the IFA doing this, I just wish they could they could see the hypocrisy of complaining about the FAI (picking players eligible to play for Ireland) and their own targeting of England u17 internationals like Oliver Norwood & Joe Dudgeon, and their targeting of young kids playing in a summer youth tournament.

[Predator]

And see you're getting a hard time from 'our friends' in the North, assuming that's you on there?

Ah, I suppose it's to be expected. I'm 'on thin ice' now though; I've been accused of lying and uttering 'half-truths' and some posters suspect I work for the FAI and I'm scouring the forum looking for players who would be susceptible to 'poaching' because I started the thread on Shane Duffy on here - oh the powers of deduction (paranoia?). Some posters even suggested that non-Northern Ireland fans should not be allowed to use the forum in light of posts from Danny Invincible, AdiosAndytown? and myself. Sure, why don't the admins at foot.ie refuse entry to EalingGreen, Gather round and Not Brazil etc. since they're not Republic of Ireland supporters? Oh wait, that's right, because it's silly.

Magnay was 21 in January, so i presume the new rule that allows players over the age of 21 to change associations, (if they have not played at senior level) kicks in. The same FIFA rule change that came too late for Niall McGinn, thus tying him to the North for the rest of his career.
I Believe Daniel Kearns approached the FAI over nine months ago.

Interesting article in today’s Northern edition of the Sunday Mirror about Lee Hodson, a Watford born player with a granny born in Belfast. The article states the IFA approached Watford and the players, including Hodson, at the Milk Cup tournament to see if any of them had any linkage to the North. It would seem that IFA officials use the Milk cup tournament to approach young kids and try and persuade them to play with the North.

Nothing contravening FIFA rules in the IFA doing this, I just wish they could they could see the hypocrisy of complaining about the FAI (picking players eligible to play for Ireland) and their own targeting of England u17 internationals like Oliver Norwood & Joe Dudgeon, and their targeting of young kids playing in a summer youth tournament.

Thanks co.down green. Are Magnay and Kearns good players? Both are on the books at Premiership clubs, so I assume they're both handy enough.

You are dead right too. It is annoying when they complain about this perceived 'defacto sectarian poaching policy'* and then argue that cases such as Norwood's or whatever are different and excusable. On top of that, their fans are outright denying that a player would ever approach the FAI to declare for them, making it out like the FAI are acting shady and kidnapping Catholic children in the North and brainwashing them into wanting to play for the Republic.

*I'd love to know how they come to this conclusion.