Is the UK a foreign country?

murphaph

The United Kingdom is not a foreign country in the sense that say, France is. The reasons are enshrined in our legislation which still enables british citizens to vote in parliamentary elections here-a 'luxury' not afforded to any other 'foreigners'. The UK reciprocates this 'luxury' to RoI citizens living in that country, again not afforded to other non-commonwealth citizens. Quite apart from the legislation, the closely interwined history makes it difficult for me to see the UK as 'foreign' like other countries. Many british and northern irish people feel the same about Ireland. Few Germans would feel that way about France (or indeed vice versa!). We watch UK TV like it was our own, follow UK sports like it was our own, the list goes on and on and it goes both ways with sports like horseracing, indeed we are probably better than 'them' at that one . When it comes to Northern Ireland, I actually feel a lot less in common with them (in general) than other UK citizens who aren't used to the sectarian way of life that passes for normality up there, having said that, I do not see NI as 'foreign' either.

Victor

Victor wrote:

Do the South Koreans consider the North Koreans foreigners? Also Germany, Yemen, Vietnam in times past?

I repeat.

JaysusMacfeck

murphaph wrote:

The United Kingdom is not a foreign country

So just because we watch the same telly we are automatically not foreign?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK is a foreign country, just as France is.

It's only proved by the fact that today my English flatmate was turned down from a government grant in Trinity because she was a foreign, British citizen. She needed to be an Irish citizen to avail of the grants in this European country called Ireland.

It's a pitty but you can't expect all the luxuries of the British to automatically
transfer to Ireland, even if we do watch the same.. TV..

Victor

JaysusMacfeck wrote:

It's only proved by the fact that today my English flatmate was turned down from a government grant in Trinity because she was a foreign, British citizen. She needed to be an Irish citizen to avail of the grants in this European country called Ireland.

Oddly, an Italian woman I know, was approved for her grant in DCU the other day. Perhaps your friend made a mistake?

murphaph

JaysusMacfeck wrote:

So just because we watch the same telly we are automatically not foreign?

As far as I'm concerned, the UK is a foreign country, just as France is.

It's only proved by the fact that today my English flatmate was turned down from a government grant in Trinity because she was a foreign, British citizen. She needed to be an Irish citizen to avail of the grants in this European country called Ireland.

It's a pitty but you can't expect all the luxuries of the British to automatically
transfer to Ireland, even if we do watch the same.. TV..

Hmmm, way to completely ignore what I wrote and put your own spin on it. The first on primary reason the UK is not 'foreign' is because OUR legislation guarantees rights to british citizens living here that are not guaranteed to any other non-nationals. The UK reciprocates this. Neither country consider the other as foreign in a legal sense. The cultural reasons are just a side issue, albeit an important one. Both are sovereign nations you understand, the UK does not have any say over our affairs and we don't over theirs (actually we do of course-we get to poke about in NI which is theirs). Does iit matter that nether country's kegislation considers the other as 'foreign'? No.

bik_ireland

F.i.n.t.a.N. wrote:

my Mother and Father are both from Northern Ireland, the last thing i think of them is a pair of foreigners.

F.i.n.t.a.N. - Of course not! To do so would be to accept English claim on Irish territory - and while the GFA is a great thing in many ways - it is a tolerance for a wrong that has been pervasive for far too many hundreds of years. BTW - I'm from Eastern Ireland ;-)

murphaph

bik_ireland wrote:

F.i.n.t.a.N. - Of course not! To do so would be to accept English claim on Irish territory - and while the GFA is a great thing in many ways - it is a tolerance for a wrong that has been pervasive for far too many hundreds of years. BTW - I'm from Eastern Ireland ;-)

Actually the United Kngdom has openly declared that it has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland on more than one occasion, the Anglo Irish Agreement was the first time IIRC, and of course it's also stated explicitly in the GFA. The UK ONLY rules Northern Ireland because a democratic majority of the population there wish it to.

bik_ireland

murphaph wrote:

Actually the United Kngdom has openly declared that it has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland on more than one occasion, the Anglo Irish Agreement was the first time IIRC, and of course it's also stated explicitly in the GFA. The UK ONLY rules Northern Ireland because a democratic majority of the population there wish it to.

You are not incorrect in that the UK has declared it's strategic disinterest in the north of Ireland - however - if we are to accept that it is the majority of people living in the 6 counties that will determine it's sovereignty and that I or others who happen to live in the 26 other counties have NO say - well that is just accepting that the 6 counties concerned are part of the UK. If the US decided to annex Galway, for example, would you accept that the people of Galway alone had the right to determine whether Galway was part of Ireland or USA? Or would you feel that Galway belongs to ALL of the people of Ireland? ..

gurramok

murphaph wrote:

Actually the United Kngdom has openly declared that it has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland on more than one occasion, the Anglo Irish Agreement was the first time IIRC, and of course it's also stated explicitly in the GFA. The UK ONLY rules Northern Ireland because a democratic majority of the population there wish it to.

And the minority have rights enshrined that they are entitled to Irish citizenship which many have and are considered Irish rather than British.
To answer F.i.n.t.a.N., yes both his parents are Irish and not foreigners but reside legally in a 'foreign' state which many of us down here don't recognise in a human sense

murphaph

bik_ireland wrote:

You are not incorrect in that the UK has declared it's strategic disinterest in the north of Ireland - however - if we are to accept that it is the majority of people living in the 6 counties that will determine it's sovereignty and that I or others who happen to live in the 26 other counties have NO say - well that is just accepting that the 6 counties concerned are part of the UK.

Yes, which it is of course.

bik_ireland wrote:

If the US decided to annex Galway, for example, would you accept that the people of Galway alone had the right to determine whether Galway was part of Ireland or USA? Or would you feel that Galway belongs to ALL of the people of Ireland? ..

The majority of the population (presumably) of Galway 'feels' Irish and would opt to remain part of Ireland of course, whereas the majority of the population of Northern Ireland 'feels' british and many more who don't 'feel' british still desire that part of this island to remain within the United Kingdom, so the analogy doesn't work tbh.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

The majority of the population (presumably)of Galway 'feels' Irish and would opt to remain part of Ireland of course, whereas the majority of the population of Northern Ireland 'feels' british and many more who don't 'feel' british still desire that part of this island to remain within the United Kingdom, so the analogy doesn't work tbh.

Your '(presumably)' makes it not work which neatly ignores the point

You talk about democracy wrt NI when the whole reason for NI was anti-democracy.

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Your '(presumably)' makes it not work which neatly ignores the point

You talk about democracy wrt NI when the whole reason for NI was anti-democracy.

Surely you either accept democracy as a decision making process for the future of the north or you don't. If you do, then the north would stay as part of the UK at least for the moment. If you prefer some extrademocratic action to "right the wrongs", then you tacitally have to accept the current situation as you'd be comitting the same anti-democratic actions yourself.

A Dub in Glasgo

Moriarty wrote:

Surely you either accept democracy as a decision making process for the future of the north or you don't.

What do you define as democratic in this instance?

The whole of Ireland?
The whole of NI?
The whole of the UK?

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Your '(presumably)' makes it not work which neatly ignores the point

Not at all. We know through poll after poll that a clear majority of NI's population support the union. SF do noy clamour for a referendum as allowed in the GFA as they know it would fail. The number of catholics happy with the union is also rising according to recent polls. I'd be more than happy to put it to a referendum and put this baby to bed for another seven years.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You talk about democracy wrt NI when the whole reason for NI was anti-democracy.

Indeed there was an anti-democratic element in the UVF etc. who aimed to remain part of the country the belonged to at that time. They feared a repressive catholic state, dominated by a rural agenda and with an anti-urban bias. Guess they were right to be afraid, but anyhow, you cannot compare the actions of today with those of almost 100 years ago and remain credible. Times change and we have moved beyond violent insurrections to achieve our goals. We now use free and fair elections.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

Not at all. We know through poll after poll that a clear majority of NI's population support the union. SF do noy clamour for a referendum as allowed in the GFA as they know it would fail. The number of catholics happy with the union is also rising according to recent polls. I'd be more than happy to put it to a referendum and put this baby to bed for another seven years.

Same question as contained in my post above yours

Guess they were right to be afraid, but anyhow

Why?

Does your 'understanding' of the UVF excuse opposition to democracy?

Moriarty

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What do you define as democratic in this instance?

The whole of Ireland?
The whole of NI?
The whole of the UK?

The northern ireland electorate, as they're the ones that would be subsumed into a different country if a vote for rejoining the RoI was successful and hence those directly affected. You could have three seperate referendums, one for the RoI, one for NI and one for the rest of the UK, but I'd be fairly sure that the RoI and UK-minus-NI elections would be a pretty resounding 'do what you like, NI people'.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Same question as contained in my post above yours

The NI electorate for me too. They are the ones who would have to make the big changes.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Why?

Because the 26 counties became a catholic dominated, rural-centric country of course.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Does your 'understanding' of the UVF excuse opposition to democracy?

Nope. I wish the UVF etc. had failed and we had always had them involved in the government of my country, perhaps the million protestants would have ensured the catholic church didn't get to practically write our constitution. However, they wanted no part in what would turn out to be Dev and Archbishop McQuaid's fantasy and I don't blame them for that.

oscarBravo

Moriarty wrote:

You could have three seperate referendums, one for the RoI, one for NI and one for the rest of the UK...

That's an interesting point. If I was drafting the rules for a plebiscite¹ on something as monumental as the subsuming of part of one sovereign country into another, I suspect I'd be carrying out four separate polls:

• the people of the UK entire
• the people of the UK outside of NI
• the people of NI
• the people of RoI

If, and only if, a majority of all four groups voted in favour would I consider making the change.


¹ Yes, I'm aware this seems to be my word of the day. Hey, it's a good 'un.

Kaiser_Sma

redspider wrote:

Its true, a country can call itself whatever it likes and the official name of the country in question, and you will know this, is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

It is not the UK (pronounced you-kay). UK is an abbreviation but its not the offical name of the country. A more accurate abbreviation is UKGBNI. I personally keep in the smaller words as they help to vowelise it and hence call it UKOGBANI (pronouned you-cog-bani).

I'm sure if I were the Falkland Islanders, or the Isla Malvinas-ers, of the Gibraltarians, I would like to see my parts recognised as well. So something like: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar" ... something like UKOGBANIAFIAG. Even I have difficulty pronouncing that! :-)

Or I could go back to what I called it earlier, "the United Constitutional Monarchy of Big Britanny, a contested 6/32 (approx) of Ireland known as Northern Ireland, a contested Falkland Islands (also known as the Malvinas) and a contested Gibraltar."

Its just as valid a label as the UK is, both of which are not official names of the country.

Your unweildy inacurate names are significantly less valid. The UK is a term used all the time by millions of people, your names not only serve no purpose but are used by no one save the terminally pedantic.

Why do you place the fawklands and Gibralter higher than UK Virgin islands and the UK Pacific territory and Belieze etc.? Overseas possesions have never required any mention in a countries name. Northern Ireland is quite lucky.

Victor

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Why do you place the fawklands and Gibralter higher than UK Virgin islands and the UK Pacific territory and Belieze etc.?

Belize is independent. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bh.html

LostinBlanch

Following on from my flippant comment about the K club being subject to UK law for the duration of the Ryder cup. Does anyone have any comment about the fact that people had to bring passports in order to gain entry to the K Club at the weekend?

We don't even need to bring passports to enter the UK!

Or is it a case of welcome to Smurfit country? :rolleyes:

Blackjack

LostinBlanch wrote:

Following on from my flippant comment about the K club being subject to UK law for the duration of the Ryder cup. Does anyone have any comment about the fact that people had to bring passports in order to gain entry to the K Club at the weekend?

We don't even need to bring passports to enter the UK!

Or is it a case of welcome to Smurfit country? :rolleyes:

Confirmation of Identity of the ticket holder, to prevent touting etc. I'm sure if someone from South Africa was there they weren't checking visas.

LostinBlanch

I know I know but the whole thing seemed to be strictly OTT to me, all they were short of was taking DNA swabs from people going in.

Maybe I'm getting old(er) but the idea of having to take my passport to access an event held in my own country rankles.

Ashdown

Saruman wrote:

TEither way we are all European so it does not matter at the end of the day. The Sooner we only have one EU flag flying and no more Union Jack or tri colour the better.

One of the greatest mistakes made by the emerging United States of America (on which the European Union was based) was to try and centralise mush of its government. This meant that most of the power rested with the federal government in Washington and not with the individual states. I do not believe that the European Union will ever or should ever come to be regarded as a single nation, or that the individual states (like Ireland) should not surrender their individual characteristics or culture.

American society tries to hard to convince itself that all Americans are the same. Everyone watches the same television programmes. Everyone eats the same fast food. Everyone wears the same clothes. Everyone gets overweight together.

I hope to God Europe learns from the mistakes of America and comes to regard itself as a collection of independent states, rather then a single country with states inside.

Plus, the European flag is boring.

Ashdown

Victor wrote:

Belize is independent. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bh.html

So it is. Well I'll be juggered. Belize is an self-governing nation comparable to Australia or Canada in independance. It recognises Liz 2 as the head of state, but not much else...

The british have 14 overseas territories, which would give them one hell of long name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories

Ashdown

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Your unweildy inacurate names are significantly less valid. The UK is a term used all the time by millions of people, your names not only serve no purpose but are used by no one save the terminally pedantic.

Why do you place the fawklands and Gibralter higher than UK Virgin islands and the UK Pacific territory and Belieze etc.? Overseas possesions have never required any mention in a countries name. Northern Ireland is quite lucky.

Gibraltar, the Falklands and all the other overseas terrotorys have no parlamentary voting rights, and are threfor regarded as under sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but not part of the United Kingdom. This is something which should probably change in the long run though. When that happens, I will be very pleased to see the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Anguilla and Bermuda and British Antarctic Territory and British Indian Ocean Territory and British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands and Falkland Islands and Gibraltar and Montserrat and Pitcairn Islands and Saint Helena and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia and Turks and Caicos Islands, or "UKGBNIABBATBIOTBVICIFIGMPISBAADTCI" for "short".

By far the most interesting aspect of this thread has been my discovery that the British Antartic terriroty, with a population of zero, actually has it's own flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_British_Antarctic_Territory.png

SitUbuSit

God...it's absolutely amazing to read some of these posts and the very real anti-British feeling.

Ok..let's sum up the facts. Ireland is an independent country. The UK is an independent country made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The term Great Britian is often used to describe just England, Scotland and Wales. But the official name of the country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Ireland is not a part of either Great Britain or the United Kingdom. We are no longer linked as Australia is through Commonwealth Status.

The term British Isles is a well accepted geographical term. Ireland is indeed part of the British Isles. Deal with it. The Irish Sea is another geographic term but I don't see anyone looking for it to be renamed.

According to the EU, UN and any other international body, Ireland and the UK are seperate states. In certain events like Rugby and Boxing...Ireland is made up of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland according to the governing bodies of the respective sports. But someone in Northern Ireland is entitled to compete for either jurisdiction according to the Good Friday Agreement 1998.

I think those are the plain facts...correct me if I'm wrong

sceptre

When the next boards awards roll around, if there's a Reality Award, seamuscarey will be my sole nomination.

Victor

sceptre wrote:

When the next boards awards roll around, if there's a Reality Award, seamuscarey will be my sole nomination.

But, do the South Koreans consider the North Koreans foreigners?

bik_ireland

murphaph
The entire attitude on the north for so many people on our island seems to start off from a base point of acceptance of the legitimacy of british occupation of our island.

murphaph wrote:

"Yes, which it is of course"

is simply an acceptance of the forced occupation of the 6 counties by a foreign power and a blinkered opinion. Please go back and learn why we are where we are. To say as you have done is to accept that britain was not wrong in the first place to invade and occupy our country. Also - you seem to be accepting that if the majority of the population of Galway decided to "feel American" their opinions would override those of the citizens in the remainder of the country. (Surely a case for Cork to declare itself a new Republic and not a thing we could do about it in your book?). I also take it, murphaph, that you are quite unconcerned with the promises that were made to our most northern brethren regarding our intention never to abandon them after partition.

The bottom line of this issue is the fact that britain illegally and immorally invaded Ireland. The occupation of a sovereign country by a foreign army is immoral and unjust.


So back to my point. The baseline for any referenum concerning the north must be one of a) The country was illegally occupied by foreign invaders, b) Those invaders have given back 26 of the 32 counties.

In our hearts we must still understand that Ireland has 32 counties! Therefore - any referendum to determine Irish opinion on reunification of north and south of Ireland MUST take into account the opinions of ALL 32 COUNTIES. To do otherwise is to accept the wrong that has been done 900 years ago.

BTW - seamuscarey

seamuscarey wrote:

"Ireland is indeed part of the British Isles. Deal with it. The Irish Sea is another geographic term but I don't see anyone looking for it to be renamed."

Séamus -
nobody lives ON the Irish sea or any other sea. So the name does not denote any "ownership", per se, however the term "Britiish Isles" does denote somewhat an ownership - and therefore some would contest the usage of that term.