QuoteWell, in summation of my feelings, I'm not at all annoyed at losing Barton but I will be annoyed if we lose Ferguson.
He doesn't get away with it. More objective posters answer his rambling, and when the mods eventually get fed up, he gets suspended or banned again.Originally Posted by awec
Well, in summation of my feelings, I'm not at all annoyed at losing Barton but I will be annoyed if we lose Ferguson.
Most of us ignore him.
Only unsure in so far as his assertion is practically unfalsifiable, meaning it's not possible for me to prove beyond all doubt. I've re-read and quoted above what CAS had to say in relation to article 15 and there was no indication from that whatsoever that they interpreted the article to refer only to players entitled to Irish nationality as a birthright. I've also done word searches within the Kearns judgment for "birthright", "birth" and "entitlement" and none of these words appeared in the vicinity of text relating specifically to article 15, so, as a consequence, I think it's safe to assume that EG isn't being honest with what he's asserting.
If EG does, however, provide evidence of CAS and Blatter's apparent confirmation/reiteration that article 15 deals only with those players who have an automatic birthright entitlement to Irish nationality, I'll retract my accusation of dishonesty in this instance. I strongly suspect he won't be able to, however, as I'm all but certain that such doesn't exist.
Maybe I should have said then that I'm 99 per cent sure he's lying until he admits that no such evidence exists and that he wasn't being honest. The onus now reasonably lies with him to prove he wasn't talking baloney. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find Russell's teapot...
The sentiment contained no double-meaning.Ta. Don't worry, I can take the hint
I enjoy the contributions provided by yourself, NB and EG, and feel the forum is much the better for your presence.
You are too kind. Nevertheless, my recent post count is worryingly high and a signal to spend more time with the big orange thing in the sky.
And I don't mean William III.
Don't get too close or your wings will melt!
Last edited by The Fly; 21/03/2011 at 7:28 PM.
Oi you!
My recall is as follows. Soon after the Gibson Ruling by FIFA, the IFAB held one of their regular meetings, coincidentally in NI (the Slieve Donard).
Afterwards there was a Press Conference and (unsurprisingly) Blatter was asked about the Gibson situation etc. In his reply, as reported, he made it clear that his understanding was that the reason why NI-born players such as Gibson etc were entitled to represent the FAI was because they were Irish citizens "from birth". This was a clear contrast to the earlier situation with Qatar and Cape Verde, who were conferring their nationality (entirely legally, btw) upon "second tier" Brazilians, in order to cap them for themselves.
My recall is always capable of being faulty, I suppose, but in this case I am confident it is not and as evidence, I need only quote from the source which you cited earlier, namely:
"As the Fifa legal committee understood the issue, the situation in Northern Ireland is such that all Northern Irish players could opt to play for both Association teams, given that they have a birthright to an Irish passport." (my emphasis)
My contention is that unlike someone born in NI, or someone born outside of Ireland to an Irish-born parent, someone born outside Ireland whose closest "connection" to Ireland is an NI-born grandparent (eg Barton) does not have a "birthright" to Irish nationality (Passport). That is, they may apply for Nationality (i.e. via Register of Foreign Births), and be successful, but they cannot be in the same category as native-born, or 1st generation Irish. (Otherwise, why would the Irish Government make a distinction?).
I hope the above is clear.
As for my "lying and deceit etc", I am capable of mis-remembering things. I am also capable of misunderstanding things, or not explaining myself completely clearly. I am sometimes wrong.
But "lying" involves deliberately stating something which one knows to be untrue. I have never done so, either here or anywhere else. Imo, your accusation of "lies and deceit" etc against me, with no proper evidence, actually says more about you than it does about me.
Beyond that, it is my avowed policy not to bitch, snitch or complain about what people post about me on internet forums even where, as in this case, the comment is both offensive and unsustainable. Rather, if I reached the stage where I couldn't take it, I'd bugger off somewhere else.
On which point you might as well know that you are a hell of a way short of that stage. Indeed, seeing as you are clearly working through my (many) posts both here and on OWC etc in an attempt to find more examples of what you infer to be my habitual lying etc, and the above is the best you can come up with, I am entirely confident that you won't, either.
Last edited by EalingGreen; 21/03/2011 at 6:27 PM.
Feeling left out?
If a person is born outside Ireland with only a grandparent born in the Republic of Ireland, they also have to apply for nationality. It's the same for people whose grandparent was born in NI.
What distinction do you mean?
Last edited by osarusan; 21/03/2011 at 7:59 PM.
English isn't his first language. Would there have been any confusion if he had said "Irish citizens by heritage"? IMHO, he's clearly just making a distinction between those who qualify by heritage rather than by adopting a new nationality based solely on residence.
I'd say the Foreign Births Register is just a procedural matter, rather than anything deeper.
I've posted my own situation here before to illustrate: I was born in Glasgow because my dad had a job there for 3 or 4 years. My Irish family moved back to Ireland when I was 3 and I lived there for 28 years until I moved to London. My kids have been born here and to obtain an Irish passport I need to complete the Foreign Births Register. In this instance I think it's hard to argue that there is any distinction between my kids being Irish* by procedural quirk or by birth right.
*They're British too, though with recent rugby & cricket results their Irishness is very much to the fore. My little fella told his English mum that "English is rubbish" on St. Patrick's Day. I almost felt guilty.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 21/03/2011 at 8:04 PM.
You are correct, any person born outside the island of Ireland with an Irish grandparent born on the island of Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship but they have to first register with the Foreign Births Register.
No, not actually
I asked this on the eligibility thread and geysir pointed out that Alex Bruce did not fall under the category of a grandparent being born in NI and that he had citizenship acquired through this means.
I'm slightly confused, I assume the Foreign register stuff was just procedural as you repeated above stutts, but that was not what others suggested. I still see that as procedural and not as "acquiring" nationality(living in a country for a set criteria and automatically entitled TO APPLY for a passport).
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
The more this goes on the more nuts it seems to get...
True, but I believe the significance to be as follows. Someone born in Ireland, or born outside Ireland but to an Irish parent, is according to Irish Law automatically an Irish National from birth. Therefore they qualify to represent the FAI under Article 15.
However, someone born outside of Ireland, whose closest connection is an Irish-born grandparent is, as I understand it, only an Irish National from the moment they successfully apply for it. As such, FIFA's Statutes treat them as someone who is "acquiring a new Nationality" i.e. Article 17. And the significance of Art.17 is that it is not enough for the player merely to have Irish Nationality (i.e. a Passport), but he must also either himself have been born, or have a parent or grandparent who was born, "in the territory of the relevant Association".
The Hughtons are an easy illustration of how it works (imo). Chris was born in England, but was automatically an Irish National from birth (due to his Limerick mother), so qualified to represent the FAI under Art.15. By contrast, I believe Cian* must have gained Irish nationality only from the moment the Irish Government accepted him onto the Register of Foreign Births etc. Consequently, FIFA treat him as an Art.17 National, and he qualifies to represent the FAI because he has a grandmother who "was born in the territory of the FAI". And as I understand it, whilst the Irish Government has/will doubtless confer Irish nationality upon Barton, he was not born in the ROI, does not have such a parent or grandparent who was born there, nor has he himself lived there for a qualifying period.
* - Had this grandparent been born eg in Larne rather than Limerick, I do not see how Cian would have qualified for the FAI, even despite his Da being a distinguished former international!
As per its own official guidelines (cited earlier), the Irish Government makes a distinction between people born outside of Ireland to an Irish-born parent, and people born outside of Ireland to an Irish-born grandparent. The former is clearly automatically an Irish National from birth, whereas I can only conclude that the latter must not be, otherwise why would the Government make the distinction in their Rules i.e. treat them differently, eg by requiring them to be Registered etc?
Btw, just in case someone accuses me of lying about all this, I would reiterate that this is only how I interpret the Irish Government guidelines, in conjunction with how I interpret FIFA's Articles. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but to date, no-one on this site or elsewhere has made a sufficiently convincing case. Nor will I be somehow "intimidated" into acquiescence by abuse, sarcasm and ganging up etc.
P.S. That last paragraph wasn't addressed at you, Osarusan.
You're correct - a person applying for citizenship through the foreign birth register is not a citizen until they are registered, and only from the date they register (it's not backdated to their date of birth).
Are you sure that achieving citizenship in this way is considered 'acquiring a new nationality'?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks