TONY Blair would like to see an all-UK football team at the London Olympic games (although it’s referred to as a ‘Great Britain’ team, as is the tradition of the Olympics). The Times reported that of the four British football federations, “England and Northern Ireland have given their backing to a united team, but Wales and Scotland have not”.
Are you confused about ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism? Anxious about its existence and its seemingly increasingly deadly capabilities? Martyn Frampton’s new book, Legion of the Rearguard: Dissident Irish Republicanism (Irish Academic Press, 2011) serves both as a primer on active dissident groups and a timely analysis of their historic significance and contemporary capabilities. This book clears [...] read our review »
Ireland is in the middle of a boom – a running boom. Chances are, even if you have never run a step yourself (apart from some painful P.E. classes many moons ago), someone you know has taken up running over the last little while. Road races in Northern Ireland and in the Republic have seen [...] read our review »
‘The IOC actually has many members that aren’t “nation states”’
PHIL:
You are still talking bollocks. If what you say is true, name 6 of these members.
‘and there is no reason why England, Scotland, Wales and indeed Northern Ireland couldn’t have individual representation at the Olympic games’
Yes there is. The IOC would have to approve it, and for that to happen there would have to be some change in the constitutional status of the UK. Like Scotland becoming independent. If the IOC started granting special status to regions of nation-states then all sorts of folks would want to have separate teams – Quebec, the Basques, the Catalonians, and every other group of malcontents who don’t have actual independence.
FIFA only recognizes the 4 separate parts of the UK because of the special role that these 4 separate FAs played in getting the sport going on an organized basis. If there was no such special status for the 4 UK FAs, the likes of Scotland wouldn’t get it today just by asking. They’d have to actually leave the UK to get it.
‘There is already widespread support for Scottish representation at Olympic level amongst MSP’s.’
That’s nice. The same goes for Quebec etc. There are many folks in regions of countries who would like separate teams, but the issue of the fact that they are already part of a country is ignored, and in a number of cases they don’t have enough support to actually separate from the country they are in. Like Quebec. They can’t get enough support to separate from Canada, but that doesn’t stop mouthy politicians in Quebec demanding everything under the sun. Like having a separate Olympic team. The fact is that they aren’t entitled to one.
Harpo,
From the IOC Charter: “Although most National Olympic Committees (NOCs) are from nations, the IOC also recognises independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas.”
Six examples:
Andorra
Hong Kong
Monaco
Palestine
San Marino
Virgin Islands
Harpo
“Un-Irish? Of course they are un-Irish you moron. That’s sort of the point of partition etc. NI is British, and presumably most if not all of the players would accept that.”
Is THAT the point of partition?
Seriously though, how does partition, or even British sovereignty over the north, make Northern Ireland “unIrish”? That seems like quite a leap of logic.
“Irish” – it means “of Ireland”, doesn’t it?
How can a political arrangement make Northern Ireland cease to be “of Ireland”? A new ice age might do it, but a political arrangement? And a specifically provisional one at that? Hardly.
Most people here accept the logic of their location, and their consequent Irishness – or “of Irelandness,” if you prefer.
“Did you not understand the bit in the GFA about some people in NI having British identity? This is the outcome of it.”
But it isn’t necessary to be “unIrish” in order to be “British”. Hundreds of thousands of people are living proof of that.
On the contary, it is illogical to be of Ireland and yet claim not to be Irish, whatever about your allegiances to Britain or anywhere else overseas for that matter.
“What in hell’s name leads you to think that anything about this issue has got to do with Irishness? NI is part if the UK, and so when a discussion comes up about a united UK team, of course the IFA is going to decide if they want to be part of it or not. Since Ni is part of the UK.”
Northern Ireland is part of the UK, that is a fact. However, northern Ireland is also, as the name suggests, part of Ireland. “Irishness” is about the things that are “of Ireland”, so clearly Northern Ireland is a big part of that?
The rugby crowd recognise the reality of Ireland and its Irelandness. Same as GAA, boxing, golf (Dunhill Cup), hockey (novel compromise of allowing northerners to play for Ireland most of the time but for GB in the Olympics), swimming and, well, most things apart from soccer.
“It’s one of the British FAs being asked to be part of a combined British team.”
Sorry to be a pedant but the IFA isn’t a “British” FA. It IS a UK association, but not a British one. “British” means “of Britain”. Northern Ireland is not “of Britain”, no matter how much anyone might wish it was.
Unless when you say “British”, you mean “possession of Britain”? But I would accredit you with more self-respect that to adopt such a toe-curlingly colonial bit of grovelling.
“If they decide to do so it isn’t because they are anti-Irish, or anti-French, or anti-Brazilian. It’s because they are British and want to be part of a combined British team.”
But they are also Irish. Your analogy would hold true if we lived in “Northern Brazil” or “Northern France”. But we don’t. We live in “Northern Ireland”, and the rest of Ireland is not just some random country with which we have no links. On the contrary, the rest of Ireland is the territory with which our sporting links are strongest, and with which we co-organise most of our sports.
Harpo,
You may care to look here,
http://www.englisholympicteam.org.uk/
and here,
http://www.c-scot.org/
Maybe then you might have some idea of how feelings towards our own national identities and how they should be represented are here in “Britain”. Take your head out of the sand, you are watching the union unravel in front of you.
PHIL; Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are sovreign states.
Billy PO; “British” is the commonly accepted adjective of something related to the U.K. The same as “Dutch” (which originally only related to Holland) now cover all things from the Netherlands.
‘Seriously though, how does partition, or even British sovereignty over the north, make Northern Ireland “unIrish”? That seems like quite a leap of logic.
“Irish” – it means “of Ireland”, doesn’t it?’
Billy:
It wasn’t me that said that the actions of the IFA made them un-Irish – that was said by a nationalist poster. Take it up with them if you disagree.
As for the definition of Irish, it depends on what you mean by being ‘of Ireland’. Does that mean ‘of the island’, or ‘of the state known as Ireland (or the ROI)’.
When the nationalist poster said that the actions of the IFA indicated the un-Irish nature of them, what did HE mean by that? Did he mean that it meant they suddenly could not claim to be of the island of Ireland? That makes no sense since they are of course of the island.
I think it is more likely that he meant that it means that the IFA is not Irish in the political way – ie of the ROI, or wishing to be part of the ROI. But I don’t see why he would be so surprised by this since the IFA does consider itself to be one of the UK FAs. And that means that they recognize that they are a British FA, and obviously not an Irish one. That’s why NI competed all those years in the British Home Championships, along with the other 3 British FAs.
Keith
“”British” is the commonly accepted adjective of something related to the U.K.”
Oh, I know that’s the common misconception.
“The same as “Dutch” (which originally only related to Holland) now cover all things from the Netherlands.”
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that Holland and the Netherlands were not the same – please tell me more if possible. Very interested.
Also, is the word “Dutch” an English-language corruption of Deutsch? Don’t the Dutch call themselves Nederlanders?
‘You may care to look here,
http://www.englisholympicteam.org.uk/‘
PHIL:
Thanks for the link to more people talking bollocks. They open with this gambit:
‘when the people of the British Isles consider themselves to be English, Scottish or Welsh and not British.’
So the people of the British Isles are either English, Scottish or Welsh are they? What a nutter.
That site is probably run by one guy. It has no other info on this supposed ‘issue’.
I could start a site demanding that everything in Wales be painted pink, and start a petition to back up my campaign, but it doesn’t mean there is a mass movement behind it.
Harpo
“As for the definition of Irish, it depends on what you mean by being ‘of Ireland’. Does that mean ‘of the island’, or ‘of the state known as Ireland (or the ROI)’.”
Clearly it means the island. That’s what Ireland is – this island. Remember, the state only takes IT’S name from the island. Even if someone tries to claim the name for themselves it doesn’t change the fact that this is all Ireland and we are all Irish.
It seems remarkable to me that so many unionists, when confronted with the Republic’s claim of the name Ireland, has simply surrendered and walked away from even calling themselves Irish, and instead set them against the facts of their physical existence – with all the psychological damage that has entailed.
“When the nationalist poster said that the actions of the IFA indicated the un-Irish nature of them, what did HE mean by that?”
I don’t know. Perhaps he was alluding to the fact that we have two traditions on this island, and the IFA is perceived as being hostile to one of them – the one that embraces the label “Irish”. That’s another argument. But clearly the Irish Football Association is every bit as Irish as the Football Association of Ireland. Anyone who claims otherwise is flying in the face of reality.
“I think it is more likely that he meant that it means that the IFA is not Irish in the political way – ie of the ROI, or wishing to be part of the ROI.”
Yep, that’s probably it. But it’s inaccurate to talk about this in terms of “Irishness” – though of course it’s a mistake made frequently by both sides of the argument.
“But I don’t see why he would be so surprised by this since the IFA does consider itself to be one of the UK FAs. And that means that they recognize that they are a British FA, and obviously not an Irish one.”
Of course the IFA is a UK FA – it governs football in one of the four “Home Nations” of the UK. It used to be one of the “Home Associations” though since the demise of the Home Championship, this has had no practical meaning.
It is of course an Irish association – the original one, in fact, hence it’s name. (The Irish Football Association – couldn’t be any more forthright than that!)
But first and foremost, it is an independent association. In international footballing terms, “Britishness” has no meaning, and the IFA is not linked to its English, Scottish or Welsh counterparts any more than to the FAI or French FA or anywhere else.
Billy P ; “I know that’s the common misconception.” If it’s a misconception, what is the adjective relating to the U.K.?
“Holland” is actually only a couple of provinces with the Netherlands. The idea that the two are interchangeable is a misconception.
‘Six examples:
Andorra
Hong Kong
Monaco
Palestine
San Marino
Virgin Islands’
Phil:
I’ll give you the Virgin Islands and Hong Kong as exceptions, but the other 4 are very definitely states. Andorra, Monaco and San Marino are microstates, but still states. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 and 93 other countries recognize it. It has its problems but it is a state.
Now back to the point – you said that there were many of these entities, so I asked for just 6. You have only provided 2 real ones. If there really were that many you would be able to choose from lots of them with no problem, but you weren’t able to. 4 out of your 6 are not what you claimed them to be.
And even the 2 genuine ones are not parts of established countries that have in some way gained the right to opt of of being represented by their main country. The Virgin Islands is an amalgum of 2 territories, and Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, having recently returned to that country. The other Chinese SAR (Macau) isn’t separate for Olympic purposes.
What I don’t see are the biggie regions of the world that routinely whine about being nations that are trapped (either wholly or partly) in other countries – the Kurds, Quebec, the Tamils, the Basques, the Catalans. Or for that matter the Irish (as defined as everyone on the island).
So I doubt that Scotland can just apply and get a separate team. If they really meant it they would vote for independence and then they would be entitled to their own team. But having half-assed ‘campaigns’ isn’t going to get them anywhere.
Keith M
“If it’s a misconception, what is the adjective relating to the U.K.?”
There isn’t one.
Which is suggestive in itself.
British is the adjective relating to the UK.
‘It seems remarkable to me that so many unionists, when confronted with the Republic’s claim of the name Ireland, has simply surrendered and walked away from even calling themselves Irish’
Not so surprising at all, when the ROI took the word Irish as meaning something different from just being from the island.
I have no doubt that my ancestors were fine with calling themselves Irish, while all of the island of Ireland was within the UK. But as soon as the word Irish started to be used in terms of an attachment to the Irish Free State, and then the state called Ireland, that obviously changed.
You can’t blame unionists for walking away from the word when it became politicized. Suddenly to be Irish meant coming from (or being aligned to) the IFS or then the ROI, with all that entailed – the flag and the anthem. Suddenly being Irish didn’t just mean being from the island.
Even today I don’t see much sign of this island basis Irishness that you talk of. When there are St. Patrick’s Day parades etc, it isn’t a celebration of island Irishness, is it? It’s all ROI flags, and green, white and orange. Those symbols are related to the ROI, not island Irishness. Why should unionists join in with these displays of political Irishness?
This was being discussed yesterday in terms of rigby. Many of your fellow nationalists were of the opinion that the IRFU should demand that the ROI anthem be used in Belfast, as if the Irish (all island) rugby team belongs to the ROI. It doesn’t.
It’s that sort of attitude about Irishness that has turned most unionists off. If that’s what the majority of Irish people think then screw them. It shows no tolerance for unionists on the island and displys the usual nationalist ‘the whole island belongs to us and our state’ attitude.
This is exactly the attitude that that nationalist poster displayed when he said that the actions of the IFA with respect to this combined UK team showed them to be anti-Irish. he meant political Irish, didn’t he.
Like it or not NI is in the UK, and since the IOC says that the UK has to have a football representing the UK if it wants to enter, it is obvious that it is going to be the 4 UK FAs that are going to have to work together (or not) to come up with some form of combined team. That means that the IFA (no matter what it is called) is going to be representing NI in those discussions, since they are the governing body for NI.
I really don’t see what the fuss is. In international footballing terms, “Britishness” does have a meaning in this case. The 4 British (looking at things from a political point of view) FAs are involved here, and no amount of whining ‘but they are from the island of Ireland’ or ‘they have the word Irish in their name’ is going to change that fact.
‘and the IFA is perceived as being hostile to one of them’
How is it hostile to one of them? It is no more hostile to one tradition than the FAI is to the other, whern it comes to anthems, flags and things.
And anyway, you are again thinking on an all island basis. This doesn’t apply in the case of football since there is no one single governing body for the island. There are 2 of them. Neither of them has to consider the 2 traditions on the island. Certainly the FAI doesn’t take the other tradition into consideration when using flags and anthems, so why should the IFA?
And the IFA as you say is independent from the FAI. So while the FAI uses the flag of the ROI and its anthem, the IFA uses the flag of NI (not even its country – the UK) and the anthem of its country – the UK.
If nationalists don’t like the arrangements being done in this way then I must say that’s too bad. Attacks on the IFA are just the usual nationalist attempt to destroy everything that shows any sense of the reality of things – the ultimate one being that NI is British. The IFA represents NI, not 2 traditions. Just as the FAI represents the ROI, not those 2 traditions.
Slug
“British is the adjective relating to the UK.”
Yes, it is the adjective that is always used, but it’s clearly illogical when applied to a state named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Harpo
“Not so surprising at all, when the ROI took the word Irish as meaning something different from just being from the island.”
But my point is that it’s remarkable that unionism just took it lying down. I believe this denial of Irishness – and for such a childish reason – is at the root of unionism’s identity crisis.
“You can’t blame unionists for walking away from the word when it became politicized.”
No, I’m not blaming anyone for anything. I’m just remarking that it seems incredible to me that so many unionists did something so stupid and short-sighted and self-defeating and self-destructive as to set themselves against the facts of their geographical existence.
“Suddenly to be Irish meant coming from (or being aligned to) the IFS or then the ROI, with all that entailed – the flag and the anthem. Suddenly being Irish didn’t just mean being from the island.”
Says who? My point is that unionism COULD have fought against that claiming of the definition of Irishness, but chose not to. Instead unionists just walked away. They used to be the loyal Irish, but since rejecting the “Irish” label and becoming the only people in the UK to be “simply British” they clearly have struggled with issues of identity.
“Even today I don’t see much sign of this island basis Irishness that you talk of.”
Damnit, it’s up to YOU to create it! Nationalists and republicans have very clear ideas of the kind of Irish people they are – you can’t blame them for unionism’s utter confusion on the issue. Jesus, nationalists can’t carve out unionism’s place in the Irish context for them! Until unionism makes peace with its own past, its past contributions to Irish culture and history, and the sheer reality of its Irishness, it will continue to suffer from the kind of cultural rootlessness and communal decline that we have seen since, well, partition I guess.
“When there are St. Patrick’s Day parades etc, it isn’t a celebration of island Irishness, is it? It’s all ROI flags, and green, white and orange. Those symbols are related to the ROI, not island Irishness. Why should unionists join in with these displays of political Irishness?”
Come along and make your contribution!
“This was being discussed yesterday in terms of rigby. Many of your fellow nationalists were of the opinion that the IRFU should demand that the ROI anthem be used in Belfast, as if the Irish (all island) rugby team belongs to the ROI. It doesn’t.”
I totally agree. As far as I understand it, the IRFU has a longstanding agreement re the anthems issue, so when Ireland play in Belfast, GSTQ should be played. I think this should happen once, so the IRFU is seen to keep its commitment, but thereafter both GSTQ and AnaBhF should be discontinued, and replaced with Ireland’s Call. You’re quite right, the Irish rugby team is not representative of RoI but of all of Ireland. Sadly the republic does not yet encompass the whole island.
“It’s that sort of attitude about Irishness that has turned most unionists off. If that’s what the majority of Irish people think then screw them. It shows no tolerance for unionists on the island and displays the usual nationalist ‘the whole island belongs to us and our state’ attitude.”
In fairness, how do you expect the rest of the Irish people to think anything else? Unionists have completely abandoned all claim to the term “Irish”. If unionism fought its corner then a more rounded and accurate definition of “Irish” might be the common currency. You have to acknowledge unionism’s own complicity in what is an unsatisfactory situation for everyone.
“This is exactly the attitude that that nationalist poster displayed when he said that the actions of the IFA with respect to this combined UK team showed them to be anti-Irish. He meant political Irish, didn’t he.”
I guess so, but he’s wrong. Why not tackle him on his inaccurate definition of Irishness, instead of accepting it and retreating?
“Like it or not NI is in the UK, and since the IOC says that the UK has to have a football representing the UK if it wants to enter, it is obvious that it is going to be the 4 UK FAs that are going to have to work together (or not) to come up with some form of combined team. That means that the IFA (no matter what it is called) is going to be representing NI in those discussions, since they are the governing body for NI.”
Of course. That is not in dispute.
“I really don’t see what the fuss is. In international footballing terms, “Britishness” does have a meaning in this case. The 4 British (looking at things from a political point of view) FAs are involved here, and no amount of whining ‘but they are from the island of Ireland’ or ‘they have the word Irish in their name’ is going to change that fact.”
I’m not saying it does. I’m simply saying that the Irish Football Association is Irish. Of course it’s a UK association, and if there is a combined UK Olympic team then this will actually become meaningful, for the first time since the old Home Championship was discontinued.
‘and the IFA is perceived as being hostile to one of them’
“How is it hostile to one of them? It is no more hostile to one tradition than the FAI is to the other, when it comes to anthems, flags and things.”
Whether the FAI is hostile to anyone is irrelevant to the question of whether the IFA is hostile to nationalists. There is a perception – hotly disputed by many, but passionately upheld by many others – that the IFA is no friend of Catholics or nationalists. Whether or not you or I agree with that perception, you can’t deny that the perception exists. That’s all I’m saying.
“And anyway, you are again thinking on an all island basis. This doesn’t apply in the case of football since there is no one single governing body for the island. There are 2 of them.”
All I’m saying is that they are both Irish.
“Neither of them has to consider the 2 traditions on the island. Certainly the FAI doesn’t take the other tradition into consideration when using flags and anthems, so why should the IFA?”
Because the IFA administers the game in a divided society, whereas the FAI does not. There is no controversy over the tricolour/AnabnF at RoI matches but there IS controversy about Union Jack/GSTQ at Windsor. In the event of a single Irish team then it would be incumbent on the organisers of that team to devise shared symbols, but at present that doesn’t exist. There is no reason for the RoI to change its symbols. NI is different, as NI is a divided society, yet the IFA aligns itself though its symbols with one side of that divided society. If you think that’s fine, fair enough, but you really can’t then complain when the other side castigate the IFA, and remain completely alienated from it.
“And the IFA as you say is independent from the FAI. So while the FAI uses the flag of the ROI and its anthem, the IFA uses the flag of NI (not even its country – the UK) and the anthem of its country – the UK.”
But NI is a divided society. Officially, of course you’re right that GSTQ and the Union Jack are the anthem and flag of the UK, of which NI is a part. But GSTQ and the Union Jack are NOT the flag and anthem of almost half the population. Doesn’t that seem to you to be a special set of circumstances?
“If nationalists don’t like the arrangements being done in this way then I must say that’s too bad. Attacks on the IFA are just the usual nationalist attempt to destroy everything that shows any sense of the reality of things – the ultimate one being that NI is British.”
In what sense do you mean “NI is British”? I’m Armagh born and raised, yet I don’t feel “British”. When I see British paraphernalia here, it strikes me as bizarre.
“The IFA represents NI, not 2 traditions.”
But why doesn’t it represent two traditions? Two traditions is THE defining fact of life in NI. How can any organisation aspiring to represent NI turn a blind eye from this face-slapping reality?
Harpo,
So because in your opinion I didn’t meet your criteria that makes me wrong and you right eh. Now read the IOC charter again and tell me that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot have their own Olympic teams.
Blair calls for a UK team and the enxt day his pal is questioned as to whether bribes rather than merit was involved in gaining honours. Well done Teflon.
Let’s face it, something has to give.
The Germans have the intestinal fortitude to get up in front of a billion viewers and put away the penalties like there is no tomorrow. The Italians likewise. But put those English pansies up there on their own and they look as though they have wet their pants.
They need some celtic power and class, those anglo posers. Wayne Rooney busting balls and breaking heads isn’t going to do it.
Hiya, Sen,
I felt I was going crazy till you showed up.
Apart from Mark Hampton every other visitor here is taking Blair’s diversionary sound-bite seriously and all getting agitated about territorial nomenclature, cultural differences, old wars and even older grudges and the price of herring on the quayside or somesuch.
If I may bring the herring further along, Blair has managed as my Tottenham mates say to “have ‘em done up like a kipper”.
Perhaps, believing that that means they are golden brown and well hung, they are happy.
“Any request for an all Ireland team is based on cobbling together a team to represent a geographic entity – the island of Ireland – and not a country. There is no logic to having an all-Ireland team. It’s simply a desire by Irish nationalists to see the whole island be deemed to be the entity that should be represented.”
Then you are opposed to the current All-Ireland rugby team?
“What in hell’s name leads you to think that anything about this issue has got to do with Irishness? NI is part if the UK, and so when a discussion comes up about a united UK team, of course the IFA is going to decide if they want to be part of it or not. Since Ni is part of the UK.”
Then why is it called the “Irish Football Association”?
Billy P “Yes, it is the adjective that is always used, but it’s clearly illogical when applied to a state named the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
There’s nothing illogical about it and in indeed this kind of noclature is common all over the Worls. The adjective for Trinidad and Tobao is Trinidadian. The adjective for Bosnia-Herzegovina is Bosnian.
I’ve askeed for your counter-proposal and with none forthcomiing it’s clear the British is the adjective for the U.K.
Keith M
“There’s nothing illogical about it and in indeed this kind of nomenclature is common all over the world. The adjective for Trinidad and Tobago is Trinidadian. The adjective for Bosnia-Herzegovina is Bosnian.”
Your argument doesn’t actually contradict mine. You assert that I’m wrong, then demonstrate that there are other parts of the world in which adjectives are also applied illogically. None of which actually contradicts my point that to refer to Northern Ireland as “British” is illogical in a state called “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. I don’t dispute that people DO use that nomenclature. I’m just saying it’s illogical.
“I’ve asked for your counter-proposal and with none forthcomiing it’s clear the British is the adjective for the U.K.”
I have no counter-proposal. Why should I have? I don’t think there’s any need whatsoever for such an adjective. Clearly neither does anyone else, given that over two centuries since the Act of Union, there still isn’t one.
Which is in itself, I think, telling.
(Incidentally, I went to college with a guy who was certainly under the impression that he was Tobagan. Point is, a popular misconception is still a misconception.)
“Then why is it called the “Irish Football Association”?”
Perhaps its should be renamed the un-irish football association!
Harpo
I have never heard anything so stupid as you saying the Irish Football Association is not irish. You have created new depths of stupidity.
Also you, and many other unionist posters, appear to be in an amazing state of denial as to how british you are perceived on the……………..MAINLAND”!!!!!!
Does’nt the ECHR have some sort of law/rule against dictating what a persons nationality is?
‘So because in your opinion I didn’t meet your criteria that makes me wrong and you right eh.’
PHIL:
That’s correct. If you make a statement saying that there are ‘many’ examples of this, and when asked to come up with 6 you come up with only 2, I’d say that you have indeed been proven wrong.
If there really were ‘many’ examples of this, you could have replaced the original 4 that turned out to be actual states with another 4, couldn’t you? Given that they are supposedly so many of them. But you couldn’t do so.
So in the end just about every entity that has accreditation with the IOC is a state, with just a few exceptions.
‘Now read the IOC charter again and tell me that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot have their own Olympic teams.’
OK, I’ve read it again, and there is still no basis for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own Olympic teams.
‘They need some celtic power and class, those anglo posers.’
Aidan:
You mean the Celtic power and class that resulted in none of the nominally Celtic teams qualifying for the World Cup finals?
Yes, I’m sure that’s what is need, so that the England team can struggle to beat Estonia.
‘Then you are opposed to the current All-Ireland rugby team?’
Brian:
No, not at all. The IRFU didn’t split after partition. It was up to rugby people to decide what they wanted to do, and they decided to stick together and keep an all-island team.
Given that there was a post-partition split with respect to soccer, I don’t see why nationalists want an all-island team put together. Why suddenly after 80+ years of getting along fine apart from each other should the 2 FAs be forced together?
It makes no sense to me. But then I don’t think it’s supposed to make sence. It’s politics, and the desire of nationalists to destroy anything with a separate ‘NI’ label on it.
‘Then why is it called the “Irish Football Association”?’
Because that was its name before partition. It may not make sense in a post-partition world 9from the political point of view) but hey, that was its name and they kept it. In fact if the argument put forward by many of this thread is correct, then it does make sense. It is the one of the 4 British FAs that is Irish, if ‘Irish’ is denifed as ‘being from the island of Ireland’.
The IFA is the Irish British FA. Just as the SFA is the Scottish (being from Scotland) British FA.
‘I don’t dispute that people DO use that nomenclature. I’m just saying it’s illogical.’
Just like using the word ‘Irish’ to represent the state called Ireland is illogical, if we are to accept that the word Irish means ‘being of the island of Ireland’.
There’s a lot of illogical use of words round, but people know what you mean when you say things.
Thus folks from the UK are British – it’s in legislation – whether or not it makes sense.
‘Harpo
I have never heard anything so stupid as you saying the Irish Football Association is not irish. You have created new depths of stupidity.’
Where did I say that? It was some other dude that said the actions of the IFA made them un-Irish.
Of course it all depends on what you mean by the word ‘Irish’. If it means ‘being of/from the island of Ireland’ then of course the IFA is Irish. It’s the 1 of the 4 British football associations that is Irish. Just as the SFA is the 1 of the 4 British football associations that is Scottish.
‘Also you, and many other unionist posters, appear to be in an amazing state of denial as to how british you are perceived on the……………..MAINLAND”!!!!!!’
The mainland of what? The UK? I know that many people across the UK have differing opinions from unionists in NI, but their ignorance of the subject doesn’t change facts. NI is British. You have just accepted that by calling GB the mainland of the UK. That means that NI is part of the UK too. Thus it is British.
Harpo,
You believe what you want to, but if you think that a few thousand union jack wavers in Ireland are going to stop the re-birth of the English nation and for that nation to have all the things taken for granted by most other nations (a government, parlaiment, oh and an olympic team) then you are in for a surprise!