NI Passports

[dcfcsteve]

I don't think the lack of references is relevant. As well as what you say above, the smaller areas don't define themselves as minor regions to the larger countries- but in practice that's what they are. The Faeroes issue equivalent to Ulster banknotes, but they're in Danish knonor. I imagine you might struggle to spend one in upcountry Jylland or Bornholm.

San Marino hasn't really "chosen" to use the Euro. Its small size means an equivalent to the Swiss Franc (which is, incidentally, closely linked to and arguably dependent on, the Euro as it was previously to the Deutschmark) is impractical.

All very interesting, but wholly irrelevant.

San Marino is an independent constitutional republic recognised by the UN. Full stop. Hence it is completely and utterly entitled to an international football team. Your personal thoughts on their monetary arrangements don't change that.

Faroes is independent in all bar defense. It even issues its own free-standing internationally recognised passports. It is because of facts like this that it is allowed an international team. It's degree of independence exceeds even the likes of free-standing British political units such as the Isle of Man, let alone integral parts of the UK state like Wales. Hence, it is leaps and bounds aheda of the UK 'nation's in terms of entitlement.

It's a legal nicety, but it's got little to do with football. In reality, there's no legal reason why NI and Scotland shouldn't play international football in the same way as the Faeroes or Andorra. Nor indeed why the NI or Scottish FAs should, or shouldn't, have a FIFA sinecure. There's nothing to stop FIFA renegotiating how the committee to consider changes to the laws of the game is appointed.

No legal reason indeed. But there is a discrepancy in FIFA/UEFA's rules here that is under constant degrees of pressure to be addressed. Pressure of the kind that forced the FAW to go to the effort of introducing its first ever national league as a defensive measure. This is not a legal issue - but one of the politics of world football.

P.S. Apologies to all for the multiple responses.

[Gather round]

thanks for being one of the few people on here capable of tackling the issue itself

No thanks for being so patronising, Steve. I think everyone else here realises what the issue is for you- that Britain shouldn't have multiple international football teams. Or, slightly more crudely, [the] Northern Ireland [team] shouldn't exist.

I'm surprised by the level of snobbery towards these countries on this thread. The UN is happy to accept these states as genuine countries, yet some people on here think they know better

It's you who are snobbish, as above. I and others mentioned the Faroes because quite obviously it is not an independent country, and it self-defines thus. So, Denmark has two teams in international competitions. To use your own favourite quip, 'end of'- though actually it could start a fascinating discussion elsewhere.

Incidentally, I don't follow the parallel in your UN Security Council allegory. Pakistan or Indonesia's worries about global security are hardly comparable to whether Jim Boyce gets to determine the width of goal lines, or whatever, indefinitely. So the latter may not be quite the hot potato you suggest.

I- and I think most other foot.ie readers, since few have said otherwise- are quite happy for the Faroes, and the other tiny countries, to play international football. It's a false argument to imply otherwise.

Your personal thoughts on their monetary arrangements don't change that [San Marino is independent]

Cheeky. I only offered an opinion (that SM uses the Euro because it would be inconvenient, indeed silly to do otherwise), because YOU threw in that they chose to do so as some sort of favour to the Italians who surround them. I'm surprised you mentioned this, as it hardly makes a case for Sammarinese autonomy. In practice, they're like a smaller version of the Channel Islands, continuing to use British pounds.

It will be interesting to see if the leading Catalan nationalist parties, buoyed by their positive referendum vote on ascending to 'nation' status within Spain, decide to push the concept of a separate team. I don't think they will, as that really would be a massive political can of worms in Spain

I agree the Catalan (football) politicians may stop short of a breakaway. But the thing is, I don't think it has any more implication for NI than for Norway. If Spain, Italy or whoever fragment into three or four teams apiece, welcome to the party. Pre-qualifying groups for Euro 2525 may need to be rejigged, but we'll deal with that when it happens. Essentially you're saying 'it might be significant if it happens, but I'm not sure how, and anyway it won't happen'...

FIFA might get tough and say 'no you can't, and nor can the British any more'. But this just isn't realistic. They have a lot less to gain than we to lose; we can refer back to our long separate football histories; both the entry of the village teams, and the break-up of the ex-Soviet countries in the 1990s arguably strengthen our position vis a vis 20 years ago.

The Africans and Asians may revive their challenge to get rid of our teams? Maybe. Why is it such a big issue for them- in crude number terms, the Africans have as many votes at FIFA as Europe does. Can we see some evidence of their past initiatives?

The government wants a Team GB, as does the GB Olympic Committee. The English and Norn Irish FA's are keen on the idea - the Scottish and Welsh are not. There can be no doubt that any combined UK team would soner or later be used to threaten the Home Nation's position within FIFA. Scotland and Wales clearly understand that

I'll admit NI and the Irish FA's position looks odd here. Clearly an Olympic team including one token U-21 player from NI would be silly. On the other hand, if that's what happens, I doubt FIFA would kick out England and NI unilaterally. There'd still be three British teams even if they did...

If the positon of the Home Nations in world football is indeed as cast-iron and concrete-safe as you suggest, then why are the Scots and Welsh so worried about a proposed UK Olympics Team ? This is very telling

It's rather simpler than you suggest. Their positions are cast-iron BECAUSE they're predictably shunning a UK team!

But there is a discrepancy in FIFA/UEFA's rules here that is under constant degrees of pressure to be addressed. Pressure of the kind that forced the FAW to go to the effort of introducing its first ever national league as a defensive measure. This is not a legal issue - but one of the politics of world football

Evidence? (This isn't a dig, but a fair question- who's doing the pressing?). The thing is, the makeup of the FIFA lawmaking committee is pretty small beer. If there was a genuine lobby against it, wouldn't the British sinecures have disappeared years ago?

[Hecko]

Reality check -
Given the relative strength of NI/Wales/Scotland (and probably also England!) in a European context, does anyone really think that 1 team or 4 would really effect the number of European teams represented at a World Cup?

There are some anomolous aspects to the situation but they are not completely unique in World terms. If the three teams were wiped out there woudl be a strong argument for retaining Euro representation as it is, especially with Montenegro (definitely) and Kosovo to join.

Betya Montenegro woud fancy their chances against a joint NI/Wales 11!

[Paddy Ramone]

Or, slightly more crudely, [the] Northern Ireland [team] shouldn't exist.

Yeah that's right. Steve wants a all-Ireland team. But if the four British associations were forced to merge most players from a unionist background would choose to play for the UK and not Ireland. Not unless the IFA and FAI merged as a thirty two county body seperate from Great Britain. I think that is unlikely to happen given that most of the IFA are unionist.

While I'd prefer an-Ireland team like George Best. I think for an all-Ireland team ever to happen we'll have to wait until political unification (which might or might not happen) to see it as a reality.

[Gather round]

But if the four British associations were forced to merge most players from a unionist background would choose to play for the UK and not Ireland. Not unless the IFA and FAI merged as a thirty two county body seperate from Great Britain. I think that is unlikely to happen given that most of the IFA are unionist

Of course it's all notional Paddy, but why wouldn't unionist players from NI declare for an all-Ireland team?They already do in other sports, like rugby union; they did immediately after partition until the FAI split; they might prefer the statistically greater chance of actually playing

[Paddy Ramone]

Faroes is independent in all bar defense. It even issues its own free-standing internationally recognised passports. It is because of facts like this that it is allowed an international team. It's degree of independence exceeds even the likes of free-standing British political units such as the Isle of Man, let alone integral parts of the UK state like Wales. Hence, it is leaps and bounds aheda of the UK 'nation's in terms of entitlement

The UK is a state not a nation. Scotland has a seperate legal system, education system and a seperate presbyterian national church. It was an independent nation from 1328 to 1603 and would have remained a seperate state if Queen Elizabeth I had married and provided heirs to the English throne. It had it's own sovereign parliament until 1707.

It could be argued that the Scots and the Welsh have a more distinct cultural and ethnic identity from the English than the Germans/Dutch or Germans/Austrians. The Dutch language developed from a dialect of Low German. Parts of Scotland have more in common culturally and racially with Scandanavia and Ireland than England.

[Paddy Ramone]

Of course it's all notional Paddy, but why wouldn't unionist players from NI declare for an all-Ireland team?They already do in other sports, like rugby union; they did immediately after partition until the FAI split; they might prefer the statistically greater chance of actually playing

Then we should have an all-Ireland team tomorrow.

[CollegeTillIDie]

Kerry has just issued it's own passports as tourist gimmick. So why can't the Wee North? they could be Red and Yellow ( the colours of Ulster) and Have NORN IRON on the front. Problem solved

[dcfcsteve]

I think everyone else here realises what the issue is for you- that Britain shouldn't have multiple international football teams. Or, slightly more crudely, [the] Northern Ireland [team] shouldn't exist.

A very predictable attempt to rubbish my viewpoint by assigning your own narrow political prejudices against it. For the record - I have no desire whatsoever to see a single British team. In fact, I would love to see it taken further - I had an article published 7 years ago calling for the establishmnet of an Isle of Man team in international football (I know - part of neither the UK or Britain, but a British Isle and a British territory...). I'd also love to see separate Basque, Catalan etc teams in international football, as well as the Welsh. Even if I did want to see a single British team, it wouldn't make my viewpoint any less relevant anyway

What i don't want to see, however, is the anachronism of institutional favouritism in international football. It made short-term sense 5 decades ago, but is increasingly non-sensical and unequitable in the present and future.

It's you who are snobbish, as above. I and others mentioned the Faroes because quite obviously it is not an independent country, and it self-defines thus. So, Denmark has two teams in international competitions. To use your own favourite quip, 'end of'- though actually it could start a fascinating discussion elsewhere.

Firstly - define independent ? I suspect strongly that whatever definition you use would therefore mean that the likes of Australia, New Zealand, Canada dn Jamaica are not 'indepedent' - which would show how complicated the question is in the first place. There is no simple 'yes/no' answer to the question "Is this country independent" as history, culture and location mean that a lot of nations that are de facto or even as good as independent are technically not (e.g. Australia).

Secondly - to bring the debate back to the issue where we began, passports are the only internationally accepted manner in which a person can prove their nationality. The Faroe Islands produce their own passposrts. A Faroese person could travel the world with a Faroes passport and not a Danish one. That to a large degree exhibits their de facto independence.

Thirdly, unlike players for the 4 UK teams and the ROI, Faroese players in internationall football can incontravertibly prove their entitlement to play for their country (i.e. through their passposrt). Furtehr evience of the unambiguous status of the islands.

Finally, you're confusing 2 concepts here. The Faroe Island are Danish, but not Denmark. There is a huge difference. The Falklands are British, but clearly not part of Britain, the British Isles or the UK. Hence, Denmark does not have 2 teams in International football. Just like the US does not have 2 teams, despite its relationship with Puerto Rico.

The Africans and Asians may revive their challenge to get rid of our teams? Maybe. Why is it such a big issue for them- in crude number terms, the Africans have as many votes at FIFA as Europe does. Can we see some evidence of their past initiatives?

Evidence? (This isn't a dig, but a fair question- who's doing the pressing?). The thing is, the makeup of the FIFA lawmaking committee is pretty small beer. If there was a genuine lobby against it, wouldn't the British sinecures have disappeared years ago?

Who knows why its such a big issue. I'm sure it differs by time and country. Some won't like the enshrined political influence it gives European/British teams. Some would doubtless use it when they think it would help them pursue their own individual agendas. Whilst others would, like myself, consider it as unsporting and not the type of thing that a modern international sporting organisation should be looking to persist with.

As for evidence of oposition to this - I posted a quote earlier from a BBC website saying that pressure form African/Asian nations had effectively forced the Welsh into setting up their own national domestic league. So the British sinecures haven't disappeared yet, but they are under attack on occassion, and assuming that continues will disappear at some point. At the momnet, no-one had had the political leverage/necessity to force the change
through FIFA. But as the body is an extremely political animal, at some point somebody probably will.

[Gather round]

A very predictable attempt to rubbish my viewpoint by assigning your own narrow political prejudices against it

I'm not the one trying to abolish others' national football teams. You are, as clearly shown in your comments earlier in the thread and quoted below. My political prejudices are quite wide-ranging, actually, and while I wouldn't claim any expertise in the constitution of the Faeroe Islands, I can spot wind-up and unsubtle attempts to blind with science well enough.

For the record - I have no desire whatsoever to see a single British team

Secondly - I am one Irish man who would like to see a British team, because it is grossly unfair to have it any other way

Make your mind up! Here's some more,

The UK has a thoroughly unfair advantage, and eventually it'll be forced to relinquish it for one or other reason

So the historical anachronism/absurdity of only one political state being represented by multiple teams still stands

Because of this ridiculous rule, 2 additional countries/states were effectively excluded from participating in those World Cups

The ONLY reason the UK has 4 represntative sides in world football is because it is a quirk of history

My emphasis. Did you ever go to that Isle of Man summer thingy, btw? Crusaders used to attend regularly.

Firstly - define independent ? I suspect strongly that whatever definition you use would therefore mean that the likes of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Jamaica are not 'independent'

The Faroes are represented in the Danish Parliament. The others are not in either the British or any third country's. (This isn't a comprehensive definition of lack of independence, of course, just a fairly obvious illustration of it. The technicalities you mention, though undoubtedly interesting, are irrelevant).

So the British sinecures haven't disappeared yet, but they are under attack on occassion, and assuming that continues will disappear at some point. At the momnent, no-one had had the political leverage/necessity to force the change through FIFA

Northern Ireland and Wales don't have any political leverage at FIFA. Why should they? Small countries with insignifcant TV markets, weak domestic leagues, and actually a record of underperformance even compared with similarly sized neighbours in recent years. Slovenia made two finals and a play-off between 1998-2004; NI and Wales have one play off between them in 20 attempts since 1986!

So, necessity then. The thing is, there's no necessity for African nor Asian countries to kick IFA, SFA and WFA junketeeers off their committees. If there was, they'd have done it by now.

See you in Klagenfurt and Basel. Viel gluck!

[dcfcsteve]

I'm not the one trying to abolish others' national football teams. You are, as clearly shown in your comments earlier in the thread and quoted below. My political prejudices are quite wide-ranging, actually, and while I wouldn't claim any expertise in the constitution of the Faeroe Islands, I can spot wind-up and unsubtle attempts to blind with science well enough.

We can all pull quotes out of context to portray someone's views in a certain light, GR, but my viewpoint has been very clear all along. Ideally I would like to see any territory that has a culturally, ethnically or linguistically distinct heritage have its own representative team in International football. Hence, I would ideally like to see the British teams maintained, and joined by the likes of Catalunya, the Basque Country, Kurdistan, Tibet, Isle of Man etc. Hence why I said I wouldn't like to see a British team. I was talking in ideal terms. Hardly the view of someone who suppoisedly wants to abolish anyone's teams....

However - the current reality of international football is that only a specific set of culturally, ethnically and/or linguistically distinct territories are allowed to have an international team and are given a permanent seat on FIFA to-boot, whilst many others are allowed neither. Hence my comment that "I am one Irish man who would like to see a British team, because it is grossly unfair to have it any other way". Note that I said I only wanted to see a single British team because it was unfair to have it any different. I have no inherent desire to see a single British team. There is a very clear difference here - the difference between what i would like to see in an ideal world, and what I believe is political reality dictates to ensure equity of standing/treatment in international football.

I'll repeat again that this whole issue is about removing favouritism and treating everyone in international football the same. Hence, it should be all or nothing - not one rule for UK teams, and another for the rest of the world. Ideally, I'd like to see this resolved by removing the permanent FIFA seat for the UK teams and liberalising the rules governing how teams are accepted into international football so that more - not less - can be welcomed. But if that ideal isn't politically possible, then I believe the only fair alternative is to enforce the rules in the other direction - having a single British team (preferably with the permanent seat removed as well). Like I said, it should be one or the other : not one rule for one, and another for everyone else. I see no contradiction in this viewpoint.

My emphasis. Did you ever go to that Isle of Man summer thingy, btw? Crusaders used to attend regularly.

No - I was too young, and it pre-dated Derry's resurrection. I used to collect the progs for it though. Bohs were the usual LOI reps (although I think Dundalk did it once as well).

Northern Ireland and Wales don't have any political leverage at FIFA. Why should they? Small countries with insignifcant TV markets, weak domestic leagues, and actually a record of underperformance even compared with similarly sized neighbours in recent years. Slovenia made two finals and a play-off between 1998-2004; NI and Wales have one play off between them in 20 attempts since 1986!

Well they have a seat on FIFA's ruling committee handed to them every so often. Harry Cavan had to have it dragged back off him, ffs ! True - the type of decisions taken at that level are often more technical than political, but a seat at the top table is a seat at the top table, no matter how small you are.

So, necessity then. The thing is, there's no necessity for African nor Asian countries to kick IFA, SFA and WFA junketeeers off their committees. If there was, they'd have done it by now.

Political necessities/realities change, so it would be wrong to think 'que sera, sera'. Otherwise, how did the necessity for a Welsh national league arise....?

See you in Klagenfurt and Basel. Viel gluck!

Not unless you're going via Stuttgart, Prague and Llubjana ! (And by the way - being a northern ROI fan does not by default make me anti-NI).

[Gather round]

We may have to largely agree to differ for the moment, Steve.

You're right about Klagenfurt/ Basel though. The nearest the NI team- as opposed to the fans on holiday- will get to Euro 2008, is our qualifier in Vaduz in March

Aren't you a little negative about your chances though? OK, it's a toughish group but the Czechs will lose the core of their team retiring, ye can take points off Germany and the rest are beatable. The Wales games should have a good atmosphere.

BTW, I was reminded of a question Derry City when talking to a couple of NI fans from the city recently. You've probably seen Sean's banner on TV at internationals, I was just wondering how many from the Waterside etc. still turn up at the Brandywell? Just idle curiosity, no ulterior motive for asking.

[David]

Disappointed to hear on the Beeb radio, last night on a partially related subject that one of the 'bands', parading in Belfast on Weds., were sporting 'badges' with the slogan 'KAI' which is frankly disgusting!
The Beeb put it down to their 'eccentricities'.

Having been in Belfast 3-4 weeks abo, realise this is a Minority viewpoint, but as a 'Southern prod' who's happily integrated, this is beyond standards of 'banter' etc.


This is purely as a point of information, btw.

Just what this has to do with this thread is way beyond me.

[Gather round]

"Some jokers on here" = everybody other than RD Bloomfield, basically...

[David]

David et al
Just to emphasise, they don't see themselves as, er, 'Irish', which is what some jokers on here, would have us believe. Though I accept it is a minority! Deplorable all the same & very very relevant to the issue of 'national identity'!

Don't let facts get in the way though. I was actually listening to something about this on the radio today and KAI is nothing to do with being Irish or not, the band you mention was named after a Glasgow Rangers player.

[Plastic Paddy]

Don't let facts get in the way though. I was actually listening to something about this on the radio today and KAI is nothing to do with being Irish or not, the band you mention was named after a Glasgow Rangers player.

The famous Kai Johansen? So famous that no-one outside of Govan or the Sandy Row RSC has ever heard of the man? Utter shîte and yet another example of the OO defending the indefensible. KAI is an obvious homage to the Rathcoole KAI thugs from the 1970s, pure and simple. Come on David, you surely can't fall for such chicanery.

Anyway, this is the subject of a vigorous debate on this site - suggest any further discussion on the subject is conducted there...

PP

[Not Brazil]

David et al
Just to emphasise, they don't see themselves as, er, 'Irish', which is what some jokers on here, would have us believe. Though I accept it is a minority! Deplorable all the same & very very relevant to the issue of 'national identity'!

As one of the "jokers" you refer to, perhaps you will expand on your comments?

Not all of us up here think along the same lines as the "KAI" Band.

Are you saying that I am not Irish?

[dcfcsteve]

BTW, I was reminded of a question Derry City when talking to a couple of NI fans from the city recently. You've probably seen Sean's banner on TV at internationals, I was just wondering how many from the Waterside etc. still turn up at the Brandywell? Just idle curiosity, no ulterior motive for asking.

I know Sean well - was in his year at school, and he's a fellow member of the London Derry City Supporters Club (even though he's Oxford based). It's interesting that he's my age a we both experienced tha same mid-1980's Northernb Ireland, republic of Ireland and Derry City FC exposure, yet we decided to follow different international teams. He's very firmly in the minority amongst Derry fans in this - though there would be support for the NI U21's as City have been supplying players to the team for a while now.

Hard to know how many people from the protestant communit turn up to Derry games, but there certainly are some. Not as many as in the IL days - though that will have as much to do with pre-versus-post 1969 Northern Ireland than anythign to do with our club. We probably had more protestant supportesr in our eearly days back in the LOI (ironically, given the politics of the time) - though we also had more of every type of support as well back then. We do have the odd high-profile protestant supporter like 'Linfield Jambo' and others, and the experiences of away fans in the Setanta Cup has shown a lot more that Derry fans are nothing like what people had assumed.

It is commented from time to time on the Derry City forum that it would be good to see more support from the protestant community. The club really is a neutral space on match days - no tricolours (apart maybe from Euro games), no sectarian singning. Even wearing a Celtic top in the Brandywell is likely to lead to snide comments. These are all voluntary measures the fans have taken subconsciously - the club has never had to drive any line on this. Likewise, I would be surprised if there was ever Irish language mottos, signage or anything like that ever introduced into the club - again because it just doesn't suit the ethos of our history and our fan's approach to football.

Hopefully as the trenches get levelled in Norn Irish society we can see more protestants seeing no big deal about watching City play. An all-Island league would doubless help in this - but that's a whole different story.....

[lopez]

...Are you saying that I am not Irish?

Far be it for me to tell anyone what exactly their nationality is this week, but I'm fascinated at how certain unionists claim to be Irish one minute (usually when in the company of nationalists) and British the next. No doubt (once again) I'll hear the same old cojones along the lines of the Trinity of being Irish, British, and the holy spirit, all in one.

[dcfcsteve]

Far be it for me to tell anyone what exactly their nationality is this week, but I'm fascinated at how certain unionists claim to be Irish one minute (usually when in the company of nationalists) and British the next. No doubt (once again) I'll hear the same old cojones along the lines of the Trinity of being Irish, British, and the holy spirit, all in one.

I persdonally see no contradiction. I think the problem is that you only have a single, one-dimensional view of 'Irishness' - one wrapped-up in terms of nationalism/republicanism, independence and unity. And invariably you only apply this to Unionists - not to catholics.

If you take the meaning of 'irish' to be what it fundamentally is - someone from the island of Ireland - then how can there be a contradiction ? That is a factual statement of geographical origin, not an emotional expression of political loyalties. Being a Geordie doesn't stop you form being English, as 'Geordie' is merely a descruptor for where you are from. It's the same with the word 'Irish'. How can you therefore be contradicting yourself when you are simply stating a fact ? Unionsts are Irish by origin and British by nationality. Nationality and origin do not always have to overlap completely.

If you load the concept of Irishness with nationalist political baggage, then I can see how you would considfer there to be a contradiction. But that is a contradiction you are creating with your narrow and exclusionary interpretation of what Irishness is.

A lot of northern Irish catholics have no desire for there to be a united Ireland (the majority, if a recent survey is to be believed), so are by default happy to remain under the control of Britain. Does that therefore lay question upon the legitimacy of their claims to be Irish ? Even if they hold an Irish passport ?? I note that it is never anti-united ireland catholics who are deemed to have a schizophrenic attitude towards their nationality or no right to consider themselves Irish. It's only Unionists who are at fault should they consider themselves both Irish and British.