We’re not Brasil we’re Tuaisceart Éireann

Territorial was being quite reasonable until tonight...he's now thrown on the jackboot and started dictating what we (Ireland fan's in the north) are.

Must have a few mid week beers in him.

Territorial wrote: irishmufc wrote: But all these regions you're talking about aren't statelets in other countries. All the Balkan countries have their own states. It's not like Serbia has a statelet within Croatia or Spain has a statelet within the Basque region which isn't a recognised state. (Leaving aside your contrived, unrecognised and insulting use of the term "statelet") You are quite simply wrong about that. There are any number of ethnic enclaves eg in the various Balkan states, many of them self-governing, where the (majority) population found itself on the wrong side of the border when the firing stopped. Many of their inhabitants would only play for their ancestral countries, but unless born before the break-up of Yugoslavia, may only do so if they can point to a parent or grandparent born in their preferred Association's territory. So I repeat, there is no other part of the world whereby people born within its territory may freely choose to play for two Associations, without also meeting FIFA's normal residential or ancestral criteria. Therefore it is the IFA which is uniquely placed, not the Nationalist population of NI. irishmufc wrote: The Ukraine is probably a better comparison as Crimea was Russian originally and I'm not sure but Eastern Ukraine may have been without googling it. The huge ethnic Russian population in Ukraine should definitely have the right to play for Russia. Why? [bold]. On what grounds should eg ethnic Russians, who have been in Ukraine for generations, suddenly be allowed to choose to play for eg the Russian Football Federation? How "Russian" do they have to be? Language? Religion? Food & Drink? Music & Culture? Both sides of the family or just one? One quarter, eighth, sixteenth? How far back? Parents, Grandparents or beyond? There are literally hundreds (thousands?) of ethnic/nationalistic/religious/linguistic groups who find themselves within the border of a nation state which they do not "recognise", often as a result of historic relocation, banishment or invasion etc, and by your principle, they should be allowed to play for some other Association because they want to? You might as well rip up the Rulebook and just let everyone play for whoever the hell they like. irishmufc wrote: The Kurds don't have a state so you cannot compare the situation to an Island with two national football associations. And the ethnic Russians fighting in Eastern Ukraine don't have a state either. Some of them want to join Russia, others want their own State. Would you distinguish between them, or let them all play for Russia "because they want to". And as for your second part, there are other islands with two Associations on them. But there are none where people in one part may play for either, but people in the other may only play for one.

I didn't create the English language so it's not my fault Northern Ireland is a British statelet in Ireland our country.

These enclaves you're talking about are regions within recognised states with one football association. They are not the same as Northern Ireland which has a football association.

I'll put it this way. If there was a Serbian statelet in Croatia then Croatians in that foreign ruled statelet should have the right to play for Croatia.

Personally I think all nations should have their own countries, states and football associations. Kurds,Basques etc etc.

There are parts of Ukraine that was originally Russia. Ireland was never part of Britain apart from being under colonial rule. That's the difference between the Ukraine and our situation.

I do think though the situation should go both ways in that if an Irish Unionist from the Republic wishes to declare for N.I. football team, then they should be permitted too. I'd rather there was no N.I. football team but while the current situation exists, tolerance has to work both ways.

irishmufc wrote: Tony Cousins wrote: the nordies are lucky to be allowed play international football. Same with the english, scotch and welsh. Regional administrative areas are not nations. They should never have been let into FIFA unless they were going to compete as Britain. It's laughable listening to people representing a plantation trying to dictate to free people what constitutes a national identity. Wrong. You're confusing nations with states. The Kurds, Basques, Welsh, Scottish, English, Tibetans are all nations. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction/state rule you happen to be under.

TC is confused, no doubt, but in trying to distinguish "nations" with "states", you are missing the point.

FIFA is not the United Nations or the EU - it recognises National Football Associations, which it purports to treat exactly equally.

Yet in the case of the IFA, we find that it is (uniquely) inequably treated, due to the combination of a clumsily drafted rule and the Republic of Ireland's idiosyncratically and politically-motivated citizenship laws.

irishmufc wrote: But all these regions you're talking about aren't statelets in other countries. All the Balkan countries have their own states. It's not like Serbia has a statelet within Croatia or Spain has a statelet within the Basque region which isn't a recognised state.

(Leaving aside your contrived, unrecognised and insulting use of the term "statelet") You are quite simply wrong about that.
There are any number of ethnic enclaves eg in the various Balkan states, many of them self-governing, where the (majority) population found itself on the wrong side of the border when the firing stopped. Many of their inhabitants would only play for their ancestral countries, but unless born before the break-up of Yugoslavia, may only do so if they can point to a parent or grandparent born in their preferred Association's territory.

So I repeat, there is no other part of the world whereby people born within its territory may freely choose to play for two Associations, without also meeting FIFA's normal residential or ancestral criteria.

Therefore it is the IFA which is uniquely placed, not the Nationalist population of NI.

irishmufc wrote: The Ukraine is probably a better comparison as Crimea was Russian originally and I'm not sure but Eastern Ukraine may have been without googling it. The huge ethnic Russian population in Ukraine should definitely have the right to play for Russia.

Why? [bold].

On what grounds should eg ethnic Russians, who have been in Ukraine for generations, suddenly be allowed to choose to play for eg the Russian Football Federation? How "Russian" do they have to be? Language? Religion? Food & Drink? Music & Culture? Both sides of the family or just one? One quarter, eighth, sixteenth? How far back? Parents, Grandparents or beyond?

There are literally hundreds (thousands?) of ethnic/nationalistic/religious/linguistic groups who find themselves within the border of a nation state which they do not "recognise", often as a result of historic relocation, banishment or invasion etc, and by your principle, they should be allowed to play for some other Association because they want to?

You might as well rip up the Rulebook and just let everyone play for whoever the hell they like.

irishmufc wrote: The Kurds don't have a state so you cannot compare the situation to an Island with two national football associations.

And the ethnic Russians fighting in Eastern Ukraine don't have a state either. Some of them want to join Russia, others want their own State. Would you distinguish between them, or let them all play for Russia "because they want to".

And as for your second part, there are other islands with two Associations on them.

But there are none where people in one part may play for either, but people in the other may only play for one.

Edited by Territorial - 17 Jun 2015 at 5:46pm

Tony Cousins wrote: the nordies are lucky to be allowed play international football. Same with the english, scotch and welsh. Regional administrative areas are not nations. They should never have been let into FIFA unless they were going to compete as Britain. It's laughable listening to people representing a plantation trying to dictate to free people what constitutes a national identity.

Wrong. You're confusing nations with states. The Kurds, Basques, Welsh, Scottish, English, Tibetans are all nations. It has nothing to do with the jurisdiction/state rule you happen to be under.

Territorial wrote: irishmufc wrote: The problem is Territorial our situation is unique. You have a huge percentage of people in Northern Ireland that identify with the Republic and consider themselves from Ireland. Obviously we feel the ROI team represents the entire Island. I don't think there's any other political situation in other parts of the world that can really compare with ours. "Unique"? Have you never heard of eg Crimea*, Eastern Ukraine, Transdniestra, Ingushetia or Chechnya (to name just a few disputed "Russian" territories)? The Uighurs? Burmese Rohinghi? Muslim Philippino separatists? Kashmiris? Syrian Kurds, Turkish Kurds, Iraqi Kurds? Tibetans? Basques? Or half the people living in the Balkans? The fact is, there are hundreds of disputed territories around the world, where whole populations - sometimes a majority - find themselves living in a jurisdiction which they do not want or recognise. But if they want to play football for an Association other than in whose territory they were born, then they either have to go and live in that territory, or have a parent/grandparent who was born there. Unlike NI's Nationalists... * - http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/04/soccer-uefa-crimea-idUKL3N0TO4OY20141204 irishmufc wrote: I can understand peoples resentment on some level where players could be seen to take advantage of Northern Ireland's underage football facility and knowingly going to declare for the Republic when they turn senior. I really don't want to get involved in a long drawn-out discussion of who did what etc, but I have no doubt whatever that there have been players* who have cynically used the IFA for their own ends, before opting for the ROI when the time suited. Or do you not believe that professional footballers could stoop to such tactics? At least in the past, players could not switch after their 21st birthday, or if they had already been capped in a senior friendly, but those restrictions were lifted at the behest essentially of African Associations, who wanted greater access to their diaspora in Europe. * - We won't mention Jack Grealish irishmufc wrote: I don't know the ins and outs of some of the standout cases if a player deliberately did that or that they just felt there would be a backlash declaring for the underage Republic squads while still living in N.I. and staying in school. There have already been a number who have played for ROI at under-age, with no sign whatever of a "backlash". In fact, considering where many of them live, there'd likely be a greater backlash if they were to play for NI! irishmufc wrote: For me the players are playing for their country and the ROI team are the representative football team of our country. As I indicated above, I'm sure if you asked the Kurds, Kosovans, Cossacks and Kashmiris etc, they'd all say something similar. And be turned down...

But all these regions you're talking about aren't statelets in other countries. All the Balkan countries have their own states. It's not like Serbia has a statelet within Croatia or Spain has a statelet within the Basque region which isn't a recognised state.

The Ukraine is probably a better comparison as Crimea was Russian originally and I'm not sure but Eastern Ukraine may have been without googling it. The huge ethnic Russian population in Ukraine should definitely have the right to play for Russia.

The Kurds don't have a state so you cannot compare the situation to an Island with two national football associations.

Come on Faroes, take out the Nordies please.

DUBLIN DOC wrote: Have to ask but are theses 2 latest halfwit gobshoites JD and coke and Irish duke another figment of an already present poster (posters) imagination, surely there cannot be that many fckin clowns logging in to this site

Another 2 in the Rovers Bohs megathread as well

Edited by Denis Irwin - 17 Jun 2015 at 3:50pm

Territorial i would say its because, being from the north, i am Irish and have no identity with being british or that culture in any shape or form.