Is Ireland "British"?

The Sparrow

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well when Irish people went to war in the BA during WW1, perhaps some of that good old english blood was a reason? See a chance to go and fight like your ancestors? Like good old english spirit?

Or to make a steady wage in a time when a job was very hard to come by.

MarkGrisham

RockinRolla wrote: »

We aren't kidding anyone by dressing up monkeys and sending them to the Dail every morning - so are we really run, secretly, by Britain? I mean, even the 'auld Geography/Atlas books say we're in the British Isles.

If we're in the British Isles, sure aren't we British then?

I'm only feeding the troll this once.

Cavehill Red

The Sparrow wrote: »

Mexico is in Northern America. Doesn't make it American.

Same way that we are in the British Isles but not British. The British Isles and Britain are two different things. Why is that so difficult for so many people to understand?

Yes - one is an island, and the other is that same island and the tiny islands surrounding it.
The confusion appears to reign among people like yourselves who lump the utterly non-British separate land mass of Ireland in with actual British Isles, like Wight, Islay, the Shetlands and so on.
The archipelago is Britain and Ireland. There are British Isles, and there are Irish Isles. They're not the same.

The Sparrow

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes - one is an island, and the other is that same island and the tiny islands surrounding it.
The confusion appears to reign among people like yourselves who lump the utterly non-British separate land mass of Ireland in with actual British Isles, like Wight, Islay, the Shetlands and so on.
The archipelago is Britain and Ireland. There are British Isles, and there are Irish Isles. They're not the same.

Is that your opinion or do you have any factual basis to back it up?

Cavehill Red

The Sparrow wrote: »

Is that your opinion or do you have any factual basis to back it up?

Read the entire thread. I've already provided citations from the Irish government, the Manchester Guardian and the London Times.

Killer Pigeon

RockinRolla wrote: »

If we're in the British Isles, sure aren't we British then?

I think you mean the North Eastern Atlantic Archipelago.

magick

Your troll powers are weak old man!

The Sparrow

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word British with Ireland. The Government of Ireland does not use the term and its embassy in London discourages its use. As a result, Britain and Ireland is becoming a preferred description, and Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured in academia, although British Isles is still commonly employed.

From wiki.

Quote:
A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle658099.ece
From the London Times.

Quote:
British Isles: A geographical term taken to mean Great Britain, Ireland and some or all of the adjacent islands such as Orkney, Shetland and the Isle of Man. The phrase is best avoided, given its (understandable) unpopularity in the Irish Republic. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled British Isles now reads Britain and Ireland.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/b
From the Manchester Guardian.

Now, since even the voices of British media authority and our own Government agree it's Britain and Ireland, who are you to argue?

But none of that means that we are not part of the British Isles. And it is hardly the voices of british media... it is a quote from a spokesman from the irish embassy who basically admits that we are part of the British Isles but we don't like it so the term is discouraged.

And you selectively quoted wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles
The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the islands of Great Britain and Ireland and over six thousand smaller islands

Just because we may not like the term, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Lux23

No of course not. I was only saying to my friend as we shopped in Debenhams and Tesco that Ireland is just so unique and individual. When we got home and stuck our M&S quiches in the oven in preparation for Eastenders, I saw a little kid walking down the road with a soccer ball and Liverpool jersey. I could go on if you like...

Cavehill Red

The Sparrow wrote: »

But none of that means that we are not part of the British Isles. And it is hardly the voices of british media... it is a quote from a spokesman from the irish embassy who basically admits that we are part of the British Isles but we don't like it so the term is discouraged.

No, you're still wrong. The spokesman overtly states that we are NOT a British Isle. That is a formal statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs of this nation.
And the Guardian quote comes from their own style guide. It is an editorial expression of their opinion. For fun and frolics, you might like to look back over any reference to the archipelago made by any British Prime Minister in the past 20 years. Not one of them referred to Ireland as a British Isle on a single occasion, for the very good reason that it demonstrably is not one.
Certainly the term exists. No one suggested it didn't. It exists in the past, when Ireland WAS a British-ruled Isle as part of the British Empire, and it exists today as a collective reference of Britain and its associated smaller islands, Wight, Islay, Shetlands, etc.
Incidentally, Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Sark aren't British Isles either.

gurramok

The Sparrow wrote: »

But none of that means that we are not part of the British Isles. And it is hardly the voices of british media... it is a quote from a spokesman from the irish embassy who basically admits that we are part of the British Isles but we don't like it so the term is discouraged.

Link to said Embassy Spokesperson please?

Our own govt rejects the term and rightly so.

Killer Pigeon

The Sparrow wrote: »

Atlantic Archipelago is increasingly favoured in academia

Nuff said.

The Sparrow

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, you're still wrong. The spokesman overtly states that we are NOT a British Isle. That is a formal statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs of this nation.

Where does he state that we are not part of the British Isles? I can only see him saying "we would discourage it's usage".

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And the Guardian quote comes from their own style guide. It is an editorial expression of their opinion. For fun and frolics, you might like to look back over any reference to the archipelago made by any British Prime Minister in the past 20 years.

So what? That in now way means that the term doesn't exist and we aren't part of it. Just because both governments don't use it, doesn't mean it is not a method of expression

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not one of them referred to Ireland as a British Isle on a single occasion, for the very good reason that it demonstrably is not one.

That is because we are not a British Isle. However we are in the British Isles in the same way that Mexico is in North America but it is not American.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Certainly the term exists. No one suggested it didn't. It exists in the past, when Ireland WAS a British-ruled Isle as part of the British Empire, and it exists today as a collective reference of Britain and its associated smaller islands, Wight, Islay, Shetlands, etc.

Exists is present tense. Existed would be the correct term for the past tense. If you agree that the term exists, then I don't see how you can argue that we are not part of it.

gurramok wrote: »

Link to said Embassy Spokesperson please?

Our own govt rejects the term and rightly so.

I was talking about the quote above and the embassy spokesman doesn't say that we are not part of the British Isles just that he would discourage usage of the term.

ejmaztec

This thread should be treated like the sick dog that it is, and be put out of its misery.

garbanzo

The people living on The Virgin Isles aint virgins so . . . .

Close thread mods. This is just more of this ****e.

gurramok

The Sparrow wrote: »

I was talking about the quote above and the embassy spokesman doesn't say that we are not part of the British Isles just that he would discourage usage of the term.

Link?

Our own govt does not recognise the term, so continue digging that hole

ejmaztec wrote: »

This thread should be treated like the sick dog that it is, and be put out of its misery.

Look, bring that dog to the vet for possible rehab you animal cruel person

ejmaztec

gurramok wrote: »

Look, bring that dog to the vet for possible rehab you animal cruel person

I will when I've salvaged what remains of his legs from the lawn-mower grass-box.:(

Cavehill Red

The Sparrow wrote: »

Where does he state that we are not part of the British Isles? I can only see him saying "we would discourage it's usage".

You missed the bit where he said we weren't part of Britain and the phrase was a throwback to the days of Empire, then?
Reading fail.

The Sparrow wrote: »

So what? That in now way means that the term doesn't exist and we aren't part of it. Just because both governments don't use it, doesn't mean it is not a method of expression

Of course it is. It's a wrong and inaccurate method of expression.

The Sparrow wrote: »

That is because we are not a British Isle. However we are in the British Isles in the same way that Mexico is in North America but it is not American.

We aren't in the British Isles. We are in the Atlantic Archipelago. Get with the 21st century, baby!

The Sparrow wrote: »

Exists is present tense. Existed would be the correct term for the past tense. If you agree that the term exists, then I don't see how you can argue that we are not part of it.

The terms exists in reference to the past.
Reading fail number two.

johnnyjb

gurramok wrote: »

No humans lives in the Irish sea nor the French channel.

I prefer the name Irish Isles for the name of Ireland and Britain

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

A V A

this is a useless thread , we are irish !! we fought for the name,republic of ireland for a reason ,e are nothing to do with britain and we are our own country

The Sparrow

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Reading fail.

Your posts in this thread have been an intelligence fail.

You can't just decide that a term of language is now out of date and neither can any government. It is only when it is not used any more by the majority of people. And if you type 'The British Isles' into any search engine you will see that it is clearly still in use. And we are part of it.

And to prove it here is various uses of the term "the British Isles" from a quick Google Search

BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-11236967
8 September 2010 Last updated at 17:21 GMT
...the orchestra is thought to be one to the top community based groups in the British Isles.

Southwest News
9 Sep 10 @ 08:59am
http://south-west-news.whereilive.com.au/lifestyle/story/billy-connolly-to-perform-in-brisbane/
He has toured relentlessly, beloved by audiences in the British Isles, Australia, and New Zealand — all locations where he made a series of successful “world tour” documentaries for the BBC.

Forbes
Sep. 7 2010 - 1:02 pm
http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2010/09/07/yes-that-is-stephen-fry-on-itunes-ping/?boxes=Homepagechannels
For those who don’t know Stephen Fry (and there will be no one on the British Isles that doesn’t)...

The New York Times
September 3, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/books/review/Kois-t.html
A  boarding school in the British Isles.

Reuters
Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:47pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68607P20100907
The film is a sure winner in the British Isles...

The Press Association
Aug 22, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jgTQdAn3rVrgw70mG7MLtRyXAtKw
...diverting much of the unsettled conditions away from the British Isles.

So yeah it is a completely antiquated term. Somebody obviously forgot to tell those respected news organisations all over the world who all used the term over the past few weeks:rolleyes:

RockinRolla

A V A wrote: »

this is a useless thread , we are irish !! we fought for the name,republic of ireland for a reason ,e are nothing to do with britain and we are our own country

We fought for nothing.

In fact, there is something to be said for this generation and the lack of spine compared to the last. People run on here and complain about Fianna Fail, yet do nothing about it or rather, can't do anything about it. The election will come and go, Cowens circus will still be in power...

..so what republic are you talking about?

grenache

RockinRolla wrote: »

nothing about a conspiracy for crying out loud...

The question was whether or not Ireland was in Britain.

I don't know, is Germany in France? is Holland in Belgium? Is Europe in America?

If the answers to these questions is yes, then Ireland is indeed in Britain :pac:

A V A wrote: »

this is a useless thread , we are irish !! we fought for the name,republic of ireland for a reason ,e are nothing to do with britain and we are our own country

Even if we were controlled by Britain, we'd still be Irish....a separate race of people. It was afterall called up to 1920, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

A V A

RockinRolla wrote: »

We fought for nothing.

In fact, there is something to be said for this generation and the lack of spine compared to the last. People run on here and complain about Fianna Fail, yet do nothing about it or rather, can't do anything about it. The election will come and go, Cowens circus will still be in power...

..so what republic are you talking about?

i have every right to say we fought for this republic , 2 parts of my famiy fought and had their role in the history of this republic,my great grandfather was murdered by a tan for being a republican,many more was murdered aswell !!! so i will say we because im sure plenty of other peoples family members had a role aswell.im not even going to talk about the republic we are , even if the british had rule over us we would still be 100% irish and i tell u this .. if they did , there would still be fighting and we wouldnt stand down:P:D:D:D

RockinRolla

A V A wrote: »

excuse i have every right to say we fought for this republic , 2 parts of my famiy fought and their there role in the history of this republic,my great grandfather was murdered by a tan for being a republican !!! so i will say we because im sure plenty of other peoples family members had a role aswell.im not even going to talk about the republic we are , even if british had rule over us we would still be 100% irish and i tell u if they did , there would still be fighting and we wouldnt stand down:P:D:D:D

But you're British.

A V A

RockinRolla wrote: »

But you're British.

wtf ??????????? are you serious pal

YouTalkinToMe

Its only british after dark in temple bar on a weekend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UrHYNTcNKI

Cavehill Red

The Sparrow wrote: »

Your posts in this thread have been an intelligence fail.

You can't just decide that a term of language is now out of date and neither can any government. It is only when it is not used any more by the majority of people. And if you type 'The British Isles' into any search engine you will see that it is clearly still in use. And we are part of it.

And to prove it here is various uses of the term "the British Isles" from a quick Google Search.


So yeah it is a completely antiquated term. Somebody obviously forgot to tell those respected news organisations all over the world who all used the term over the past few weeks:rolleyes:

Firstly, you'd need to demonstrate in each of those cases that the reference included Ireland. I don't believe you can. Furthermore, the BBC article is factually incorrect. The Manx government, like our own, declares it is not a British Isle. The NYT one likewise is incorrect.
Secondly, none of those agencies are Irish. In Ireland, the term is antiquated, as the Government have stated.
National Geographic, the Guardian and others do not use the term because it is long past its sell-by date and inaccurate. No British PM has used the term with reference to Ireland in a generation.
Seriously, it's like you're arguing that because some people still say 'n!gger' that it's a perfectly correct way to refer to black people.

LordSutch

celticbest wrote: »

I always try to wear my Ireland Flag pin badge when away to ensure I not taken as being a Brit or from another native English speaking country. The Term British Isles is England clinging to the last of what was once a great empire, something which they seem to be slowly coming to terms with.

The term refers to a lot more than just the two islands of Britain & Ireland, it encompasses the whole archipellago of some six thousand islands, two large islands, (and some very small), its a great geographical term for those in the know, specifially for weather reports, flaura & fauna conserves, sea life references, wildlife habitation, etc, etc, etc ...........

Ireland is part of the archipellago which includes the largest island in Europe 'Great Britain', which in turn is off the coast of Brittany

England is but a part of!

moonpurple

Ireland is not British, though some irish at the northern end have a preference for the british tradition and that is respectuflly recorded in the orange portion of the irish flag

one of many reasons why the republic of ireland is not british is that most people

on the island headquartered by London do not understand the following

Ta Una gan a Guna
Ta Seine gan a leine

and most people on the island of Ireland follow the gist of those two lines
and many people on the isalnd can add similar lines, san sean teanga a bfuil againn as ar sinseare

sin an sceal mo cairde Gael:pac:

LordSutch

Your theory is flawed, as most people don't understand Irish

moonpurple

you are wrong sir and if your being outside of the ancient tradition of the Gael is unsettling, never fear, you are always fully at home in the south east of England, it is no longer 1901 sir,

ni mhaith liom bheith ag eisteacht le sassananch ag caint sios dom

LordSutch

1901 - South East of England, Sir

Please elaborate.

The Sparrow

Ok I'm done after this. I refuse to explain the same thing over and over again.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Firstly, you'd need to demonstrate in each of those cases that the reference included Ireland. I don't believe you can.

I'm too lazy to go through those articles but here is a yet another recent one for you from yet another respected news organisation that does exactly what you ask:

Wall Street Journal
August 16, 2010, 5:56 AM ET
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/08/16/this-week-ireland-tests-bond-market/
...there are still plenty of market-moving events in the British Isles. Perhaps most important is Ireland’s bond sale Tuesday.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Furthermore, the BBC article is factually incorrect. The Manx government, like our own, declares it is not a British Isle. The NYT one likewise is incorrect.

Once again you are mixing up bing a British Isle and being part of the British Isles. I'm not sure how I can explain this anymore succinctly. The British Isles is simply a geographic term to describe the group of islands including Ireland and the UK and various other islands.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Secondly, none of those agencies are Irish. In Ireland, the term is antiquated, as the Government have stated.

Can you find me a direct quote from the government that says we are explicitly not part of the British Isles. Saying it is an antiquated term is not the same as saying we are not part of it. In fact saying it is antiquated is recognising that we are part of it but don't want to be. If the government didn't think we were in the British Isles, they would just say that instead of saying it is an antiquated term that we don't care for.

National Geographic, the Guardian and others do not use the term because it is long past its sell-by date and inaccurate. No British PM has used the term with reference to Ireland in a generation.

Really????

The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mind-your-language/2010/may/11/snooker-british-isles-mind-your-language
...the British Isles is a geographical term generally taken to embrace the large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and the many smaller ones in the vicinity, such as Orkney, Shetland and the Isle of Man.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mind-your-language/2010/may/11/snooker-british-isles-mind-your-language

The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2010/feb/06/british-road-trips
Saturday 6 February 2010
From the Yorkshire Wolds to the Outer Hebrides and Ireland, the British Isles are a motorist's paradise. Here are some of our favourite routes

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Seriously, it's like you're arguing that because some people still say 'n!gger' that it's a perfectly correct way to refer to black people.

No I'm simply arguing that the term exists and we are part of it. In the same way that the word you used exists and even though the majority of people doon't like it, it still means the same thing.

Cavehill Red

The Sparrow wrote: »

Ok I'm done after this. I refuse to explain the same thing over and over again.

We get it. You're wrong but stubborn and won't listen to reason.

The Sparrow wrote: »

I'm too lazy to go through those articles...

ROFL. You cite them but you didn't bother reading them?

The Sparrow wrote: »

Once again you are mixing up bing a British Isle and being part of the British Isles. I'm not sure how I can explain this anymore succinctly. The British Isles is simply a geographic term to describe the group of islands including Ireland and the UK and various other islands.

No, it's a geographical description of Great Britain and its associated islands. It USED to be as you describe, but hasn't been for years, except by people like you who live in the distant past.

The Sparrow wrote: »

Can you find me a direct quote from the government that says we are explicitly not part of the British Isles.

You had that twice already.

The Sparrow wrote: »

Saying it is an antiquated term is not the same as saying we are not part of it.

Yes it is. Britain was part of the Roman Empire, which is now an equally antiquated term. But Britain is not NOW part of the Roman Empire. Get it yet?

The Sparrow wrote: »

In fact saying it is antiquated is recognising that we are part of it but don't want to be.

No, it means that we were ONCE part of it, but are no longer.

The Sparrow wrote: »

If the government didn't think we were in the British Isles, they would just say that instead of saying it is an antiquated term that we don't care for.

They bluntly state so in the link that you repeatedly refuse to accept.

The Sparrow wrote: »

Really????

Go on. Read the rest of their entry in the style guide. Selective quoting is very naughty, you know.

The Sparrow wrote: »

No I'm simply arguing that the term exists and we are part of it.

And you're wrong. Ireland is not a British Isle. That is Government policy and current usage.

The Sparrow wrote: »

In the same way that the word you used exists and even though the majority of people doon't like it, it still means the same thing.

No, it doesn't. It refers to Britain and its isles only.

losthorizon

Is Flanders Dutch?

steddyeddy

If we were run by the british dont you think we would have fought alongside them (as a country) in world war 2.

The Sparrow

Tigger

losthorizon wrote: »

Is Flanders Dutch?

no he's from springfield

Lumen

If we wanted you again we'd have you, but we're so over that now.

Jonah42

You drive your German car to an Irish pub to drink Belgian beer, before returning home getting an Indian curry or a Turkish kebab on the way, you open your door that was made in Taiwan, sit down on your Swedish furniture while turning on your Japanese tv to watch American shows.

steddyeddy

err, no, the reality is, England wants rid of the Scots and the Norn Irish, we are fed up paying for them.

oh, is that a Celtic Badge on your sig.....

Yes thats true (the ni bit anyway) most british and their governments would love to be free of NI, however its quite right that they continue to fund both scotland and ni until they want independance

LordSutch

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, it's a geographical description of Great Britain and its associated islands. It USED to be as you describe, but hasn't been for years, except by people like you who live in the distant past.

If I may interject in your spat with the Sparrow, the term is not confined to the distant past, it is still widely used here in Ireland & in Britain, (and world wide too), but only in certain circles, and only for specific geographical issues.

Please read Post#180

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes you are.

You have been ruled for over 800 years. Most people in Ireland have English or Scottish blood.

keith not only do you take offence to northern irish people who call themselves irish but you take offence to southern irish who refer to themselves as irish.

Of course we had briton blood in us in the past just as the british had celtic blood in them and roman and anglo and saxon, need I go on?

By the way keith the irish are slightly distinct genetically as a race from the british, haplo group r1b which the british have but in nowhere near the levels that we do in our population.

Now If your talking about cultural identity then I presume that you consider all the british colonies british because they had some british blood in them and by that measure you consider who we think of as british really roman/italian/celtic/anglo/saxon/german queen?

The irish are irish, the northern irish are northern irish or whatever they want to be. we live in the british isles sure (this is changing however national geographic consider us the irish and english isles) but that doesnt mean we are not irish.

The isle of man is in the irish sea I suppose thats irish too op?

Sunnyisland

Vorsprung wrote: »

The the 1,000,000th time...

The British Isles is a geographical description, not a political description.

correct

steddyeddy

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Where is the proof that Irish people have a lot of English blood. The closest link to Irish people is people in the Basque region.

your quite right a lot of the english who came here breed with the native irish as little as possible and those who did became "more irish than the irish themselves"

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well when Irish people went to war in the BA during WW1, perhaps some of that good old english blood was a reason? See a chance to go and fight like your ancestors? Like good old english spirit?

then went on to kick the brits out of ireland with a bit of good old english spirit

steddyeddy

Lux23 wrote: »

No of course not. I was only saying to my friend as we shopped in Debenhams and Tesco that Ireland is just so unique and individual. When we got home and stuck our M&S quiches in the oven in preparation for Eastenders, I saw a little kid walking down the road with a soccer ball and Liverpool jersey. I could go on if you like...

So based on the media/clothes/shops you subscribe to I would say your american/british/spainish/latino. the list goes on

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

then went on to kick the brits out of ireland with a bit of good old english spirit

Im offended. I will prepare my army of naked protestant women.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Im offended. I will prepare my army of naked protestant women.

sexy!