The Darron Gibson Saga

KdjaCL

Ibid wrote: »

I'm not familiar with any case being brought in front of the ECJ regarding an organisation patently refusing to accept the constitution (and that's exactly what it is) of two of its members.

But is it? the IFA have lobbied successfuly thats its not a rule.

eirebhoy wrote: »

Getting away from the football for a second. This country is thousands of years old, it has 32 counties and it's called Ireland. It always has been and always will be. And back to football... if the IFA and FAI never split we obviously wouldn't be having this debate and we'd be the one country to FIFA. We can't just deny a person his right to be Irish because he was born and bred under British rule.

i feckin knew you would be on , this country billions of years old whats recognised by FIFA would the only years that matter in this case.

Dammit why did i reply to this thread......



kdjac

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote: »

a point i was going to make. there's no real precedence to this. if it were to go to court we could well win, but i guess KdjaCL you make a valid point about FIFA taking the ball away. the question would be could the ECJ make life difficult enough for FIFA to operate as usual in the rest of the EU states and perhaps pressure them to concede? it's unexplored territory really... should the ECJ rule in our favour, you cannot say clearly that FIFA political international political clout would be strong enough to overrule the political clout of the ECJ and thus the union as a whole, and that's probably what it'll come down to at the end of the day.

FIFA is not in the EU. They operate a competition (s) inside it but it isnt based here.

If you made up a 5 a side competition would you like to decide who plays? or would you be happy for me to come along and decide who I want to play in your competition and in which teams.



Seeing as were are going back hundreds/thousands/millions of years I think we should all have dual citizenship with Scandanavian countries. But then I might decide we should go back further and there should be no countries and we should all be able to play in the WC individually under our own ade up flags.

astrofool

He could have been born and bred in Scotland or Wales, or Australia or India, or many other places around the world in that case.

FACT is, that as long as there are two seperate associations (FAI and IFA) then Gibson will be Northern Irish and not eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland, although I hope they do let him in this case, I doubt any later cases will even get this far.

And multi-quoting = skip that post, Mr.Nice Guy, you just wasted the minutes of your life you spent writing that, you can easily write an answer to someone else's post without being so pedantic as to break it down line by line and in fact, you'd lose any debate if answering so that way.

GuanYin

I think they key issue here, and the reason why I don't think this ruling will stand the test of time, is that Northern Ireland is not an independent state or country and is not one of the 222 recognised countries world wide, nor does it meet the technical requirements to be technically defined so. Nor are Scotland or Wales for that matter.

There could be alot of problems arising from this ruling. For instance, what happens to someone who's grandparents were born in Northern Ireland before the 1920's?

It will most likely take a young player challenging FIFA on the ruling, but if put in front of EU law, FIFA would lose.

Guy:Incognito

astrofool wrote: »

FACT is, that as long as there are two seperate associations (FAI and IFA) then Gibson will be Northern Irish and not eligible to play for the Republic of Ireland, although I hope they do let him in this case, I doubt any later cases will even get this far.

The decisionwas made today. He can play for us but thats the end of it, in future, nordies play for the north and english & Irish players continue to play for the repiblic.

Time Magazine

KdjaCL wrote: »

But is it? the IFA have lobbied successfuly thats its not a rule.

Feck the IFA. The convoluted Westminster/Stormont/NI situation has accepted the Good Friday Agreement. Constitutionally, people born in Belfast have a right to Irish citizenship if they dad's name was Paddy. Britain/NI's constitution is a complicated business, but this isn't under any doubt post-GFA.

Stekelly wrote: »

FIFA is not in the EU. They operate a competition (s) inside it but it isnt based here.

Operating here is adequate enough. The European Commission recently fined Microsoft something like €500m.

If you made up a 5 a side competition would you like to decide who plays? or would you be happy for me to come along and decide who I want to play in your competition and in which teams.

If you run a competition that says "No blackies allowed", how long do you think it would be before you're brought before the Equality Authority?

eirebhoy

Stekelly wrote: »

Who denied him his right to be Irish? Does he not have an Irish passport?

I was replying to Kdjacs post but maybe I picked him up wrong. People have to make it clearer when they're talking about being Irish and being Irish according to FIFA.

Johnny_the_fox

psi wrote: »

There could be alot of problems arising from this ruling. For instance, what happens to someone who's grandparents were born in Northern Ireland before the 1920's?

i think thats how some qualified presently. Ger Crossley who played at underage level many moons ago may have used this.

Guy:Incognito

Ibid wrote: »

If you run a competition that says "No blackies allowed", how long do you think it would be before you're brought before the Equality Authority?

Thats not whats being said, and the rule isnt "no irish" its "you have to play for where your from" which is fair enough. It doesnt exclude anyone it just means international football isnt club football where you can whore yourself to the highest bidder.

Guy:Incognito

eirebhoy wrote: »

I was replying to Kdjacs post but maybe I picked him up wrong. People have to make it clearer when they're talking about being Irish and being Irish according to FIFA.

FIFA never said he wasnt Irish either. At the end of the day , it amounts to the same thing as us giving (pre-capped) Ronaldinho a passport and playing him.

Time Magazine

Stekelly wrote: »

Thats not whats being said, and the rule isnt "no irish" its "you have to play for where your from" which is fair enough. It doesnt exclude anyone it just means international football isnt club football where you can whore yourself to the highest bidder.

"Where you're from" is the debate here.

There's the argument that kdjacl (or whatever the **** his name is) pointed out that it might be a bit like "banning" FIFA from organising, but if they operate in the EU, they operate in the EU.

eirebhoy

Stekelly wrote: »

At the end of the day , it amounts to the same thing as us giving (pre-capped) Ronaldinho a passport and playing him.

I know that. I'm talking about his Irishness, nothing to do with football so lets just leave it.

Guy:Incognito

Ibid wrote: »

"Where you're from" is the debate here..

As long as there are 2 different Fa's /leagues etc, he is from the north.

Time Magazine

Stekelly wrote: »

As long as there are 2 different Fa's /leagues etc, he is from the north.

Load of bollix tbh. It's far more complicated than that.

leninbenjamin

Stekelly wrote: »

FIFA never said he wasnt Irish either. At the end of the day , it amounts to the same thing as us giving (pre-capped) Ronaldinho a passport and playing him.

it's clearly not though. Ronaldinho doesn't have a constitutional right to citizenship here based on the region in which he was born, as well as an agreement that was ratified by both territories. it's not giving them out willynilly!

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's clearly not though. Ronaldinho doesn't have a constitutional right to citizenship here based on the region in which he was born, as well as an agreement that was ratified by both territories. it's not giving them out willynilly!

Whats the difference (bar the grand scale of it) between that and giving someone the same citizenship on an individual basis.

KdjaCL

Ibid wrote: »

Load of bollix tbh. It's far more complicated than that.

No its not theres a border, nordies live up there we live down here.


Thats the way it is.


kdjac

leninbenjamin

Stekelly wrote: »

Whats the difference (bar the grand scale of it) between that and giving someone the same citizenship on an individual basis.

you're missing the point entirely... it's not given on an individual basis. it's given as a direct result of the location of his birth like thousands of others...

Time Magazine

KdjaCL wrote: »

No its not theres a border, nordies live up there we live down here.

Nordies have a right to Irish citizenship. Not just a case of us saying "We'll let all Brazilians be Irish", but this case the Nordies agree to it too.

FIFA telling a citizen they can't play for the country of which they're a citizen.... dodgy. Not saying it's definitely going to be over-ruled etc. etc., but it's definitely on dodgy ground.

Guy:Incognito

Ibid wrote: »

FIFA telling a citizen they can't play for the country of which they're a citizen.... dodgy. Not saying it's definitely going to be over-ruled etc. etc., but it's definitely on dodgy ground.

Whatever way you get citizenship o a country it amounts to the same thing. So its as shaky as us giving a brazilian a passport and trying to get him to play for us.

Time Magazine

No it's not the same. A constitutionally-altering agreement between two regions in the EU is stronger than a unilateral action by a gang of thieves.

leninbenjamin

Stekelly wrote: »

Whatever way you get citizenship o a country it amounts to the same thing. So its as shaky as us giving a brazilian a passport and trying to get him to play for us.

again you're missing the point as i see it. as mentioned numerous times previously citizenship is not enough, FIFA rather look at HOW citizenship was granted (i.e. place of birth, granny rule, residency) in whether that fulfills their criteria. now the manner in which people in NI are conferred citizenship is more akin to how we in the ROI are granted citizenship (i.e. on the basis of birth) than simply granting citizenship to a footballer you want to play for your country, i.e. on the whims of a minister. and my understanding it's solely the latter that FIFA intended to eliminate with their rule changes.

OhNoYouDidn't

Too much to even consider quoting, so consider this at you all

1: I think I am with the majority when I say that I want DG and other Northern Nationalists to play for the FAI 11. However, the pragmatist in me appreaceates it is not that simple.

2: The simple reality is that FIFA have changed the rules in the last couple of years, so talking about Maik Taylor or Andy Tow5:nsend or other blow ins misses the point. There is a new framework for eligibility we have to deal with.

3: We broke the rules. End of. Poxy rule based on a big hammer to crack a Quatari nut, but a rule nonetheless.

4: Forget about the ECJ or any of that nonesense. No-one has a human right to international representitive sporting action and the nuclear option FIFA will use if we even think about it isnt worth it.

5: The GFA is irrelevant, rules of the association have changed and we didnt object when Quatar got lagged, so we haven't a leg to stand on now. FIFA is aboove national law, always has, always will.

6: We got away with our arses today. We could have lost points and gotten a huge fine. The sensible thing that a politically astute Delaney, knowing that there is sweet FA talent coming from the 6, will do is hold off 3 or 4 years till there is a new president in FIFA and have another go then

7: Kdjac, mods really shouldnt be involving themselves in cheap shot wind ups like that.

OhNoYouDidn't

Ibid wrote: »

No it's not the same. A constitutionally-altering agreement between two regions in the EU is stronger than a unilateral action by a gang of thieves.

but when the IFA appealed the FAI's interepretation of that agreement for eligibility, that positon became very complicated.

Time Magazine

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

4: Forget about the ECJ or any of that nonesense. No-one has a human right to international representitive sporting action and the nuclear option FIFA will use if we even think about it isnt worth it.

Nobody mentioned human rights.

5: The GFA is irrelevant, rules of the association have changed and we didnt object when Quatar got lagged, so we haven't a leg to stand on now. FIFA is aboove national law, always has, always will.

The GFA is extremely relevant. It's almost as important as if we staked a territorial claim to the six counties.

FIFA is NOT "above" the European Court of Justice.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

but when the IFA appealed the FAI's interepretation of that agreement for eligibility, that positon became very complicated.

Complicated of course. (And btw I'm not arguing that Ireland should have the right to Northern Paddies (jury's out for me on that), but I am saying that they might.) The IFA is not above FIFA. FIFA is not above the ECJ. The ECJ might consider our constitution more important that a rule FIFA changed all of five minutes ago.

It's perfectly plausible (man I hate having spell everything out) that e.g. the Mr. Paddy 6 Counties would take FIFA to the court to let him ply his trade with Ireland, him having been raised six inches from the border and having (only?) Irish nationality and that the e.g. ECJ say "FIFA, yer rules are crap." What happens there is debatable. FIFA might say "Well screw your rules, we're not playing any games in Europe ever again" -- in which case the ECJ would have little or no clout -- but that's fairly unlikely.

PHB

It's an interesting question to be honest, to be honest, I think FIFA have got it wrong. They are trying to give one of the home nations special protection, but in reality, they are ignoring the fact that people who are living in the North who see themselves as Irish are in their minds currently living in Ireland.

Guy:Incognito

Ibid wrote: »

Mr. Paddy 6 Counties would take FIFA to the court to let him ply his trade with Ireland,.

Heres where you dont see the rule difference. The EU intervene in club football to stop things like homegrown quotas etc because that stops people moving freely and earning. International football has nothing to do with earning a crust so employment issues dont come into it, which is why the EU have no say in the issue.

Ibid wrote: »

him having been raised six inches from the border and having (only?) Irish nationality and that the e.g. ECJ say "FIFA, yer rules are crap." What happens there is debatable. FIFA might say "Well screw your rules, we're not playing any games in Europe ever again" -- in which case the ECJ would have little or no clout -- but that's fairly unlikely.

Again it's FIFA's competition. If anyone wants to play they play by FIFA's rules or they dont play. Simple as. Because of the above about employment the EU have no say.

There would be uproar if there was a mass exodus of all our top players ocming through to the north. This is being seen from the point of view of us, the country that has the most to gain and the least to lose. It's very easy to say "**** the IFA" when its us that are ****ing them. If England were creaming off the top Welsh, Scottish and Nordie player people would be up in arms.

OhNoYouDidn't

Ibid wrote: »

Nobody mentioned human rights.

Thats what the ECJ rule on, so it was implied.

Ibid wrote: »

The GFA is extremely relevant. It's almost as important as if we staked a territorial claim to the six counties.

But the IFA are won their case that the GFA was irellevant to FIFA rules. Please try to keep up, its all over the press.

Ibid wrote: »

FIFA is NOT "above" the European Court of Justice.

It is you know. FIFA is not based in the EU, so very much 'above' their remit. A simple google would have told you that.

Ibid wrote: »

Complicated of course. (And btw I'm not arguing that Ireland should have the right to Northern Paddies (jury's out for me on that), but I am saying that they might.) The IFA is not above FIFA. FIFA is not above the ECJ. The ECJ might consider our constitution more important that a rule FIFA changed all of five minutes ago.

Again, you might as well appeal it to the Mexican High Court. FIFA live in Switzerland, and like it or not the IFA are members too.

Ibid wrote: »

It's perfectly plausible (man I hate having spell everything out) that e.g. the Mr. Paddy 6 Counties would take FIFA to the court to let him ply his trade with Ireland, him having been raised six inches from the border and having (only?) Irish nationality and that the e.g. ECJ say "FIFA, yer rules are crap." What happens there is debatable. FIFA might say "Well screw your rules, we're not playing any games in Europe ever again" -- in which case the ECJ would have little or no clout -- but that's fairly unlikely.

Of course its plausible that the CSA might arbitrate on a case when the Mongolian Supreme Court or what other court with no remit you waste your time petitioning over a Swiss corporation are finished dismissing your case. Then you will realise 'trade' has nothing to do with it as its unpaid international sport.

Until the next nationalist who has no UK passport decides to take an individual case to the CSA, this debate is done. We lost.

OhNoYouDidn't

PHB wrote: »

It's an interesting question to be honest, to be honest, I think FIFA have got it wrong. They are trying to give one of the home nations special protection, but in reality, they are ignoring the fact that people who are living in the North who see themselves as Irish are in their minds currently living in Ireland.

As were Brazilians living in Quatar.

You are asking FIFA to make a political call on the Irish question. Never going to happen.

leninbenjamin

Ibid wrote: »

It's perfectly plausible (man I hate having spell everything out) that e.g. the Mr. Paddy 6 Counties would take FIFA to the court to let him ply his trade with Ireland, him having been raised six inches from the border and having (only?) Irish nationality and that the e.g. ECJ say "FIFA, yer rules are crap." What happens there is debatable. FIFA might say "Well screw your rules, we're not playing any games in Europe ever again" -- in which case the ECJ would have little or no clout -- but that's fairly unlikely.

once again Ibid takes the words right out of my.... keyboard? if it ever came down down to Europe vs. FIFA you can be damned sure that it would go the way of Europe. we form the bulk of it's revenue remember? and FIFA members aren't usually the type to act solely on principle...

edit:

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

As were Brazilians living in Quatar.

i'm sorry but i'm becoming entirely exasperated by the comparisons here... there is very little similarities between the two...

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You are asking FIFA to make a political call on the Irish question. Never going to happen.

no, it would be effectively asking FIFA to respect the legal arrangement already in place in regards to this complicated situation. but yeah, tey wont ever move on this unless forced to by a powerful European body.

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote: »

we form the bulk of it's revenue remember?

Who? Ireland? because if you think anyone else in Europe give a flying **** about this you'd be wrong.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

if it ever came down down to Europe vs. FIFA you can be damned sure that it would go the way of Europe.

On what grounds? They are not denying anyone making a living or discriminating. They own the competitions and they make the rules, like anything in life, if you dont like it, dont take part.

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

once again Ibid takes the words right out of my.... keyboard? if it ever came down down to Europe vs. FIFA you can be damned sure that it would go the way of Europe. we form the bulk of it's revenue remember? and FIFA members aren't usually the type to act solely on principle...

Europe V FIFA?

Which bit of Europe? The court that has no sporting remit or the court that has no reach into Switzerland?

Get a fúcking grip lads

leninbenjamin wrote: »

i'm sorry but i'm becoming entirely exasperated by the comparisons here... there is very little similarities between the two...

the principal that citizenship alone did not qualify you to play international football. it all stems from that.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

no, it would be effectively asking FIFA to respect the legal arrangement already in place in regards to this complicated situation. but yeah, tey wont ever move on this unless forced to by a powerful European body.

move on what? THE IFA SUCCESSFULLY DISPUTED THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE GFA ENTITLES ALL NI BORN IRISH CITIZENS TO PLAY FOR THE FAI XI. THEY ARE NOT ARGUING THE GFA DOES NOT CONFER A CHOICE OF CITIZENSHIP, THEY ARE SAYING ITS IRRELEVANT TO FIFA RULES, AND THEY ARE TECHNICALLY RIGHT.

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote: »

no, it would be effectively asking FIFA to respect the legal arrangement already in place in regards to this complicated situation. but yeah, tey wont ever move on this unless forced to by a powerful European body.

Why. What we decide to do with the uk is of no consequence to FIFA. Why should they care what agreement we come to with the UK to give passports to their citizens unless it allows them to change declaration countries for footballing reasons? The GFA doesnt because FIFA require more than a passport to allow you declare for a country you never lived in/stepped foot in, so its of no interest to them.

If they want to be Irish so much they are more than welcome to move down here and build up the requirement they need to qualify to play for us. Sure all these protracted legal threats and court cases would probably take longer than fullfilling the requirments of FIFA's rules anyway.

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

If they want to be Irish so much they are more than welcome to move down here and build up the requirement they need to qualify to play for us.

Huh? Since when did Irishness become the property of the ROI state? They are Irish by virtue of being born on the island of IRELAND. If FIFA won't recognise that then they will have some legal wrangles to contend with. By allowing Gibson to play they have set a precedent.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Huh? Since when did Irishness become the property of the ROI state? They are Irish by virtue of being born on the island of IRELAND. If FIFA won't recognise that then they will have some legal wrangles to contend with. By allowing Gibson to play they have set a precedent.

Jesus, you again? you listening carefully :FIFA RULES. to qualify you must meet criteria other than having a passport. They havnt set a precident. stop clutching at stupid political straws. It's a different country, end of. Why would there have to be an agreement between two different government sif it wasnt. Being born in Scotland doesnt entitle you to play for England. Just because it's in our fairly recent history that the country was split doesnt change the fact it was split.

They wont have any legal wrangliings. They arent discriminating agaisnt anyone, they arent stopping anyone playing football.they are telling people what they have to do if they want to play THEIR game, otherwise the people can go find somethign else to do wiht their leisure time.




Are North Koreans allowed play for South Korea? No. Shut up, thats why.

leninbenjamin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

move on what? THE IFA SUCCESSFULLY DISPUTED THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE GFA ENTITLES ALL NI BORN IRISH CITIZENS TO PLAY FOR THE FAI XI. THEY ARE NOT ARGUING THE GFA DOES NOT CONFER A CHOICE OF CITIZENSHIP, THEY ARE SAYING ITS IRRELEVANT TO FIFA RULES, AND THEY ARE TECHNICALLY RIGHT.

AND NOW I RESORT TO CAPS TO MAKE MY POINT LOUD AND CLEAR AND TO GIVE MYSELF A SENSE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE...

and i particularly like...

Stekelly wrote:

Are North Koreans allowed play for South Korea? No. Shut up, thats why.

classy.

my final note: the law under discussion here was created with the intentions that "any player assuming a new nationality without a clear connection to that country will not be eligible to play for it." i think NI has a pretty clear connection to ROI regardless but that's just me.

good night folks.

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote: »

classy.
.

It was a qoute/joke, calm yourself child.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

my final note: the law under discussion here was created with the intentions that "any player assuming a new nationality without a
clear connection to that country will not be eligible to play for it." i think NI has a pretty clear connection to ROI regardless but that's just me.

good night folks.

I assume your talking about the FIFA rule?

Ireland has no clearer a connection to NI than any other country that used to be combine with another. They are now seperate countries and are treated as such (seperate governments, FA's, laws etc)

define "clear connection" and do you have a link to the FIFA rule book where it's worded like that?
It's a lot more specific and has 3 (iirc) very clear and precise qualifying points.

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

Jesus, you again?

No - Mr.Nice Guy. Jesus is a different guy.

SteKelly wrote:

you listening carefully :FIFA RULES. to qualify you must meet criteria other than having a passport. They havnt set a precident. stop clutching at stupid political straws. It's a different country, end of.

They have set a precedent as you well know. They have allowed for an Irish citizen from Derry to play for the team representing the Irish state and yet will now proceed to deny other northern-born Irish citizens the opportunity to do likewise. It's got legal wrangle written all over it. And it's not a different country. It's Ireland. Sorry to shatter your 'Ireland ends at the border' mentality.

SteKelly wrote:

Being born in Scotland doesnt entitle you to play for England. Just because it's in our fairly recent history that the country was split doesnt change the fact it was split.

There's no Scottish or English citizenship.

SteKelly wrote:

They wont have any legal wrangliings.

LOL. Wait and see.

SteKelly wrote:

They arent discriminating agaisnt anyone, they arent stopping anyone playing football.they are telling people what they have to do if they want to play THEIR game, otherwise the people can go find somethign else to do wiht their leisure time.

They are discriminating as they are preventing Irish citizens from the North to play for the team which represents the state where they hold citizenship. It's a very simple situation which you have incredible difficulty understanding.

SteKelly wrote:

Are North Koreans allowed play for South Korea? No. Shut up, thats why.

Ooh personal insults. How very telling!

North Korea and South Korea don't have an international treaty which sets out the rules of citizenship for the respective states.

You haven't a leg to stand on as far as this issue is concerned and you show a poor understanding of international law and citizenship so you continue spouting out your insults, patronising tone and your Kevin Myers-esque self-loathing begrudgery bollocks like a good lad.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They have set a precedent as you well know. They have allowed for an Irish citizen from Derry to play for the team representing the Irish state and yet will now proceed to deny other northern-born Irish citizens the opportunity to do likewise. It's got legal wrangle written all over it. And it's not a different country. It's Ireland. Sorry to shatter your 'Ireland ends at the border' mentality.
.

Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true. Why have we different governments, laws, football associations, police forces, armies (i know theres not a NI army before you pipe up) currency, head of state etc etc etc if we are "Ireland" .

Incidentally, where is this single, all island country , Ireland, you mention? I see an Ireland ,republic of Ireland and a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
. But funnily enough no country encompassing the whole Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm

Bit strange that you keep going on about it being one country while usining an agreement between the two different governments of the two countries on the island to argue you point about Gibson.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

No - Mr.Nice Guy. Jesus is a different guy.

I dont doubt that or the fact that I'd say he has a better grasp of whats going on than you, even allowing for the fact he's fictional.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

There's no Scottish or English citizenship..

Is there a Northern Irish citizenship?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

They are discriminating as they are preventing Irish citizens from the North to play for the team which represents the state where they hold citizenship. It's a very simple situation which you have incredible difficulty understanding...

Where are all the Brazilians being "discriminated" against in Quatar?

Here's the thing. I could play for Germany because my mother is from their. If she wasnt but I applied for and got a German passport, I couldnt play for them. It's all very simple.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

North Korea and South Korea don't have an international treaty which sets out the rules of citizenship for the respective states.

Wouldnt matter if they did, see FIFA's rules, they are very clear.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You haven't a leg to stand on as far as this issue is concerned and you show a poor understanding of international law and citizenship so you continue spouting out your insults, patronising tone and your Kevin Myers-esque self-loathing begrudgery bollocks like a good lad.

Your the one claiming we ive in a 32 county Ireland and I have a poor understanding?

Either way, I really dont see the appeal of having aneconomic dead weight that the British dont want anyway, added to our country.

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

Just because you keep saying it doesnt make it true. Why have we different governments, laws, football associations, police forces, armies (i know theres not a NI army before you pipe up) currency, head of state etc etc etc if we are "Ireland" .

There are two states on the island but one nation - 'Ireland'. By the same token Scotland does not have its own police force, head of state, currency etc yet presumably you would regard it as a nation as I would and thus a country. Scotland's not a state but it is a nation. The same is true for the island of Ireland.

SteKelly wrote:

Incidentally, where is this single, all island country , Ireland, you mention? I see an Ireland ,republic of Ireland and a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
. But funnily enough no country encompassing the whole Island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries
http://www.internetworldstats.com/list2.htm

Try reading Bunreacht na hEireann for reference to this single all-island country...

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation.

In other words the nation can be defined in terms of the island. The previous article was a lot more forthright about this.

SteKelly wrote:

Bit strange that you keep going on about it being one country while usining an agreement between the two different governments of the two countries on the island to argue you point about Gibson.

It's not strange at all if you understand nation-states. Let me simplify it for you. There arr two states on this island - the 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland' yet there is but one nation - Ireland. This nation is the result of centuries of common nationhood. You can't undo a nation by drawing lines on a map. Why do you think there's such a thing called Irish nationalism? Why do you think the provision allowing citizens of the north easy access to Irish citizenship was brought in? For a laugh?

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

Is there a Northern Irish citizenship?

Not that I'm aware of.

SteKelly wrote:

Where are all the Brazilians being "discriminated" against in Quatar?

Here's the thing. I could play for Germany because my mother is from their. If she wasnt but I applied for and got a German passport, I couldnt play for them. It's all very simple.

I'm not familiar with the Brazilian situation and Qatar. I'm also not sure what your comments about germany mean. They seem like red herrings.

SteKelly wrote:

Wouldnt matter if they did, see FIFA's rules, they are very clear.

Well it certainly would matter as presumably FIFA would have to make a judgement on it as they had to with Gibson.

SteKelly wrote:

Your the one claiming we ive in a 32 county Ireland and I have a poor understanding?

Precisely.

SteKelly wrote:

Either way, I really dont see the appeal of having aneconomic dead weight that the British dont want anyway, added to our country.

Your viewpoint on that matter doesn't come as a surprise to me.

leninbenjamin

Stekelly wrote: »

I assume your talking about the FIFA rule?

Ireland has no clearer a connection to NI than any other country that used to be combine with another. They are now seperate countries and are treated as such (seperate governments, FA's, laws etc)

define "clear connection" and do you have a link to the FIFA rule book where it's worded like that?
It's a lot more specific and has 3 (iirc) very clear and precise qualifying points.

heads gone asleep, should have pointed out it was a direct quote of a BBC article, a paraphrasing of the emergency committee

Fifa's emergency committee ruled on Wednesday that players must have a "clear connection to that country" if they wished to wear the colours of a nation other than the one of their birth.

also, in light of this someone like Gibbo now has no national team they can play for. i can't see this ruling lasting, someone is going to challenge it sooner or later, and it wont be the FAI mind you. And seeing as FIFA had no qualms with the agreement that was in place between the various home nation states, i still can't understand how they can choose to ignore the GFA. still it's not just the GFA that forms the clear connection in my mind, it's our constitution. I'm guessing Qatar doesn't have anything like this in relation to Brazil, Gibson, unlike them is born a member of our nation, regardless of whether he chooses to uptake it or not, not the other way around.

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Why do you think the provision allowing citizens of the north easy access to Irish citizenship was brought in? For a laugh?

Homestly? To shut people up and stop them whinging. The nationalists are given a sense of victoy and stop whinging, go home and think they won. The unionists dotn need to start whinging because everything is still the same and the can continue being British. All with a view to (hopefully form the Brits pov) being able to be cut off one way or another and stop being a drain on the british economy.

Just like the West Germans werent happy with their downturn after re-unification, the British wont be sad to see the back of the North.

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

Homestly? To shut people up and stop them whinging. The nationalists are given a sense of victoy and stop whinging, go home and think they won. The unionists dotn need to start whinging because everything is still the same and the can continue being British. All with a view to (hopefully form the Brits pov) being able to be cut off one way or another and stop being a drain on the british economy.

That might have been a part of the government's thinking alright but I think Fianna Fáil still have strong republican views at heart. They are talking about organising up north in the future after all.

SteKelly wrote:

Just like the West Germans werent happy with their downturn after re-unification, the British wont be sad to see the back of the North.

Something you and I both agree on.

Guy:Incognito

leninbenjamin wrote: »

also, in light of this someone like Gibbo now has no national team they can play for. i can't see this ruling lasting, someone is going to challenge it sooner or later, and it wont be the FAI mind you. And seeing as FIFA had no qualms with the agreement that was in place between the various home nation states, i still can't understand how they can choose to ignore the GFA. still it's not just the GFA that forms the clear connection in my mind, it's our constitution. I'm guessing Qatar doesn't have anything like this in relation to Brazil, Gibson, unlike them is born a member of our nation, regardless of whether he chooses to uptake it or not, not the other way around.

HE does, he's allowed play for us because the initial **** up allowed him to and FIFA are letting him continue, 1, to stop any backlash of leaving a young player with no country to play for and 2, they are possibly showing a bit of compassion and common sense in allowing him to have an international career.

If the "clear connection" thing is coming from FIFA and not th eBBC paraphrasing FIFA, then I'd imagine that FIFA are paraphrasin themselves on the eligebility reqirements. I think they are listed in this thread somewhere but Iirc living in the country for 2 years is one requirement. That would give you your clear connection. Its a bit like people marring for passports when they check up to see they are actually living together etc.


Anyway , If it's a case that others could use Gibson as a precident, why could they not use the recent amnesty as precident. FIFA has changed its rules (actually just clarified an existing one) and thats what matters.

TBH they could end up changing it back again , but I'd imagine it'll be like a case of a shop taking back something the person just decided they dotn want anymore just so they dont have to listen to people moaning for ages.

darkman2

No wait a minute. I dont care about what FIFA ruled as it can be appealed successfully. The reality is that within UEFA, Ireland (this island) is very unique in Europe. This is a divided country. Now some of you may be partitionist or ignorant or both but the reality is that those born in NI have a right to Irish citizenship i.e of the Republic. That was decided by referendum on this Island. It is an agreement between two sovereign countries - the UK and the ROI unique in Europe and perhaps the world. Before all you 'realists' speak perhaps you should spare a thought for the nationalists in NI who will NEVER want to represent NI. Those who would not even entertain the thought. BTW there is sufficient evidence as to how Nationalists are treated by the fans up there but lets not go there. Are you saying that the North of our country which was split against the majority should not be able to provide for these players future in terms of internationals? I say go have a long look at yourselves because they are your countrymen too. I am not satisfied with this decision. Can I do anything about it - no. It will have to wait until the next nationalist player takes a case against FIFA. So be it. But dont the 'realist' get on here all righteous because you are anything but. If you were a nationalist born in Derry you would know what I mean. Soccer player for pro club with your international career already decided..........you dont have a clue how nationalist players up their would view this so QFT.

Guy:Incognito

darkman2 wrote: »

No wait a minute. I dont care about what FIFA ruled as it can be appealed successfully. The reality is that within UEFA, Ireland (this island) is very unique in Europe. This is a divided country. Now some of you may be partitionist or ignorant or both but the reality is that those born in NI have a right to Irish citizenship i.e of the Republic. That was decided by referendum on this Island. It is an agreement between two sovereign countries - the UK and the ROI unique in Europe and perhaps the world. Before all you 'realists' speak perhaps you should spare a thought for the nationalists in NI who will NEVER want to represent NI. Those who would not even entertain the thought. BTW there is sufficient evidence as to how Nationalists are treated by the fans up there but lets not go there. Are you saying that the North of our country which was split against the majority should not be able to provide for these players future in terms of internationals? I say go have a long look at yourselves because they are your countrymen too. I am not satisfied with this decision. Can I do anything about it - no. It will have to wait until the next nationalist player takes a case against FIFA. So be it. But dont the 'realist' get on here all righteous because you are anything but. If you were a nationalist born in Derry you would know what I mean. Soccer player for pro club with your international career already decided..........you dont have a clue how nationalist players up their would view this so QFT.

Unique? How many countries have come from the split up of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR?


Nobody is forced to play international football, its an honor and a priviledge. If you decide , for political reasons, you dont want to play for the country your from, so be it, let it end there. Otherwise, accept you call up, be greatfull it ever came and get on with it like the majority of others.

Theres no debate about peoples right to be an Irish citizen, thats fine, the are given that. FIFA decide on the rules of their own competitions and just being a citizen of a country isnt enough to qualify , so be it. Like it or lump it, those are the rules, your not forced to play for anyone .

darkman2

Stekelly wrote: »

Unique? How many countries have come from the split up of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR?


Nobody is forced to play international football, its an honor and a priviledge. If you decide , for political reasons, you dont want to play for the country your from, so be it, let it end there. Otherwise, accept you call up, be greatfull it ever came and get on with it like the majority of others.

Theres no debate about peoples right to be an Irish citizen, thats fine, the are given that. FIFA decide on the rules of their own competitions and just being a citizen of a country isnt enough to qualify , so be it. Like it or lump it, those are the rules, your not forced to play for anyone .

Well, if you think that highly of a sporting organisation your missing the point. They have no right whatsoever to interfer in an agreement that makes individuals (if they choose) citizens of our country. As citizens they are entitiled to the full works. End of story. The IFA took this action (i understand why they did) but this wont last. Its to shut them up in the short term basically. If you understood what happened to Neil Lennon you would know where I am coming from. You dont understand. You have not lived through the abuse he has. FIFA are not going to dictate that that is what must happen to be in the NI team. We should stick by these players.

leninbenjamin

Stekelly wrote: »

HE does, he's allowed play for us because the initial **** up allowed him to and FIFA are letting him continue, 1, to stop any backlash of leaving a young player with no country to play for and 2, they are possibly showing a bit of compassion and common sense in allowing him to have an international career.

i know HE does, but from here on in a nationalist who wont swear allegiance to the British crown to get a passport wont by the sounds of it.