Do you consider nationalists from Northern Ireland to be Irish?

downcow

Berserker wrote: »

The IRFU is a very progressive organisation, the most progressive of the major sporting organisations on the island and I think that they above will be in place in a few years time. It would be proper and right to have both flags on display. AnF will be phased out over time also and 'Ireland's Call' will be played at home and away games. The pilot of playing it at away games as the anthem has been a huge success. Rugby fans in NI and the RoI are mature and open enough to support this change. They should be held up as an example to all.
.

Couldn’t disagree much more with you. They have never given any significant recognition to ni , never mind equal recognition.
I hope I am wrong but I don’t think there is the slightest chance they will recognise flags of both countries.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I think most living in ni would accept the Ulster banner (nearly same as Ulster province flag but white instead of yellow). Clearly the union flag is the official flag of ni but I think most unionist would be very happy to compromise with the Ul as the union flag would probably be too sensitive for roi people.

So in short the same flag as ni use in most other sporting events

It's not an official flag, and has no place alongside a flag like the ROI's flag.



Secondly, in the same way (and I know this is not universal among all nationalists) I don't expect the Irish Tricolour to be accepted by the Protestant community in a (inevitable) United Ireland (because of its misuse) I don't think the Ulster Banner with its use by Loyalist terrorists would be appropriate now.

However, IF the Ulster Banner became an official flag for NI I would accept it.

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

Secondly, in the same way (and I know this is not universal among all nationalists) I don't expect the Irish Tricolour to be accepted by the Protestant community in a (inevitable) United Ireland (because of its misuse) I don't think the Ulster Banner with its use by Loyalist terrorists would be appropriate now.

I think it's best that you lay off the flag talk.

To paraphrase Alan Partridge "ders more to Ireland den flags"

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not an official flag, and has no place alongside a flag like the ROI's flag.



Secondly, in the same way (and I know this is not universal among all nationalists) I don't expect the Irish Tricolour to be accepted by the Protestant community in a (inevitable) United Ireland (because of its misuse) I don't think the Ulster Banner with its use by Loyalist terrorists would be appropriate now.

However, IF the Ulster Banner became an official flag for NI I would accept it.

But are you ok with the Irish tricolour being used with its extensive use by irish terrorists like ira?

So are you saying you would prefer Urdu to use the official flags of the two countries ie the tricolour and uj?

downcow

downcow wrote: »

But are you ok with the Irish tricolour being used with its extensive use by irish terrorists like ira?

Yes, I don't like the misappropriation. But, it's the official flag of Ireland. If NI had an official flag I'd accept it flown alongside the tricolour.



I don't understand your last sentence.

downcow

Anyhow. Didn’t want to open a flag debate. Just saying that real recognition of our community in the Irish rugby scene would be really appreciated

alastair

Sleeper12 wrote: »

These islands of ours wasn't in the education books recommended & approved by the Irish government. They could have insisted that it be changed but they never did. They officially recognised term British Isles by allowing it, in fact, approving it in our books and schools.

I'm sorry but to claim that we haven't recognised this term on a government level is plain nuts.

The Dept of Education has never recommended geography textbooks. It doesn’t play any role in approving or mandating any of the textbooks. So no, they don’t officially recognise the term. Their position on it is as stated:

The British Isles is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense. It is without any official status. The Government, including the Department of Foreign Affairs, does not use this term.

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, I don't like the misappropriation. But, it's the official flag of Ireland. If NI had an official flag I'd accept it flown alongside the tricolour.



I don't understand your last sentence.

We do. The Union Jack is our official flag but I thought that may be a request too far.

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

I don't understand your last sentence.

I'm assuming it autocorrected irfu.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

We do. The Union Jack is our official flag but I thought that may be a request too far.

That's the UK flag, and the team that takes the field represents the island of Ireland, and does not include Scotland, England or Wales.

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

That's the UK flag, and the team that takes the field represents the island of Ireland, and does not include Scotland, England or Wales.

You fecking love flags.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

So are you saying you would prefer Urdu to use the official flags of the two countries ie the tricolour and uj?

Ah, Ironicname decoded for me. As per my last post, no! :P

alastair

alastair wrote: »

It’s anyone entitled to Irish citizenship, or who naturalises. Which would include the people born on this island,

Do people actually believe this?
Children born in the Republic are not automatically Irish. Children born in Northern Ireland can be Irish or British.
How is that fair?
Someone born in the North is entitled to be Irish but those born in the south are not?

alastair

bubblypop wrote: »

Do people actually believe this?
Children born in the Republic are not automatically Irish. Children born in Northern Ireland can be Irish or British.
How is that fair?
Someone born in the North is entitled to be Irish but those born in the south are not?

That’s not the case. The same provisos that exist in the republic since the 2004 amendment apply to NI.

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Probably for the best, because I'm a little uncertain what point you're trying to make. You said yourself it was only official since 2007. That, and you may need to come back to correct me, seems less than 100 years ago. :rolleyes:


Do the books published recently have the term British Isles on them? Can you scan a copy on here?

I thought they said it was in books up to 7 years ago, presumably when they were in school or had sight of it.

Junkyard Tom

Ironicname wrote: »

Really?

It could be argued that it's a region of a country, albiet a contested one currently under UK jurisdiction, but it isn't a country in its own right and neither is it a nation.

It's not a recognised country?

A country normally has a flag, an anthem, a relatively contiguous nation of people resident, and whatnot - the north has none of those.

Donnielighto

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It could be argued that it's a region of a country, albiet a contested one currently under UK jurisdiction, but it isn't a country in its own right and neither is it a nation.



A country normally has a flag, an anthem, a relatively contiguous nation of people resident, and whatnot - the north has none of those.

It's a distinct entity holding a geographical area that governs, it's a country inside a union/country.


Mind you they can't sort out governance atm.

Sleeper12

alastair wrote:

The Dept of Education has never recommended geography textbooks. It doesn’t play any role in approving or mandating any of the textbooks. So no, they don’t officially recognise the term. Their position on it is as stated:

That's not true. You are literally making this up. You are honestly trying to say that the department of education has no roll in deciding what books are required to teach the curriculum that they dictate? Honestly? Believe it or not there are people employed by the department of education whose job is to ensure that the books used match the curriculum. You honestly believe that schools get to pick any old book themselves? Do you honestly believe that geography teachers get to teach any old cack they want?

These claims alone with your buddy saying that it's too expensive for the department to alter the content of books over a hundred year period are ridiculous. Can you just not admit that british isles was encouraged by the department of education until 2007 and now its not? That's an argument but trying to say that the department of education allowed generation upon generation to be taught about the British Isles when this wasn't recognised by the government isn't an agreement in any shape of form.

The department of education sets down exactly what teachers have to teach, and what they have to cover on a given year. They also approve or disapprove books over the years. They have also insisted on changes to certain books over the years. I remember primary school teachers teaching us Irish out of a particular book. Each teacher told us the same thing. Department of education no longer allowed this book but all of the teachers in our school believed that the old book better than the new modern Irish book. We all had to buy the new book even though we were being taught from the old book.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

That's the UK flag, and the team that takes the field represents the island of Ireland, and does not include Scotland, England or Wales.

I'm comfortable enough in my irishness not to be offended on seeing the union Jack in Ireland. I welcome Royal visits as they are invited guests rather than being here as my ruling monarch. I see no difference in a visit by Obama to that of the Queen.

If people have such big issues admitting that the term British Isles was taught in schools in Ireland and part of our education system for 100 years then I could see how the union Jack could be too much for them at a rugby match. I do totally agree with you that if the team is made up of North & South players & represents both sides of the border then the flags needed to looked at.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Probably for the best, because I'm a little uncertain what point you're trying to make. You said yourself it was only official since 2007. That, and you may need to come back to correct me, seems less than 100 years ago.

I know you are being deliberately stupid with your comments to wind me up.

What I actually said is that it was official until 2007 at least. I never said that it was official since 2007. That's you being deliberately silly as I have repeated this several times. This has been on the curriculum in Irish schools for 100 years. The curriculum is approved /dictated by the department of education. This is part of the Irish government as you well know. When the Irish government was making ridiculous statements about British Isles having any of meaning/standing in any government department it was being taught in schools using books approved by the Irish government with the term British Isles. Can you not see the contradiction in this? The government was talking out the side of its mouth when making these statements. It was saying one thing on the world stage but was not just practicing something different, it was actually teaching something different. Fork tongue native American might call it

This really is a ridiculous argument but you have doubled down on this today and I don't understand why it's that important to you. Can you not just admit that it was an official term until 2007 and is no longer an of term?

NIMAN

I see Ian Paisley and Arlene Foster as Irish.

I know they don't see it themselves, but if you are born on the island of Ireland, you're Irish (imho).

Once you are abroad if you're a nationalist or a unionist, doesn't matter, you're seen as Irish.

downcow

I think ni nationalists are completely Irish in the same way I am completely British but we are also both northern Irish

alastair

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's not true. You are literally making this up. You are honestly trying to say that the department of education has no roll in deciding what books are required to teach the curriculum that they dictate? Honestly? Believe it or not there are people employed by the department of education whose job is to ensure that the books used match the curriculum. You honestly believe that schools get to pick any old book themselves? Do you honestly believe that geography teachers get to teach any old cack they want?

These claims alone with your buddy saying that it's too expensive for the department to alter the content of books over a hundred year period are ridiculous. Can you just not admit that british isles was encouraged by the department of education until 2007 and now its not? That's an argument but trying to say that the department of education allowed generation upon generation to be taught about the British Isles when this wasn't recognised by the government isn't an agreement in any shape of form.

The department of education sets down exactly what teachers have to teach, and what they have to cover on a given year. They also approve or disapprove books over the years. They have also insisted on changes to certain books over the years. I remember primary school teachers teaching us Irish out of a particular book. Each teacher told us the same thing. Department of education no longer allowed this book but all of the teachers in our school believed that the old book better than the new modern Irish book. We all had to buy the new book even though we were being taught from the old book.

Once again - the Department of Education plays no role in authorising, vetting, or validating geography textbooks for the curriculum. In the case of language studies, where specific literary texts may come up in exams, they do provide a list of prescribed literary textbooks.

Sleeper12

alastair wrote:

Once again - the Department of Education plays no role in authorising, vetting, or validating geography textbooks for the curriculum. In the case of language studies, where specific literary texts may come up in exams, they do provide a list of prescribed literary textbooks.

And we dance round & round

The department of education make the curriculum for geography like all subjects. The department of education has inspectors visiting primary schools to ensure that the curriculum is being taught correctly and to assess the teachers themselves.

Are you honestly stating that the department of education does not know what each book contains? You honestly believe that a teacher can teach flat earth & introduce books on the subject & the department of education will have nothing to say about it? The department of education didn't find out in 100 years that British Isles was being taught in school? That it was being taught in the teachers colleges? In 100 years the department of education didn't know that the books contained British Isles? Then you claim that the department of education can't ban a book or order rewordings in reprints?

Come on now. Think your arguments through

riffmongous

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They removed it in 2007 but it is still taught in school in Ireland.

The fact that it was in department of education approved books means it was an official term.

No it doesn't. The Gov is clear on this. It was a general term for describing the area, with a dodgy history, that's being phased out now same as the East Indies, Thule etc

Donnielighto

riffmongous wrote: »

No it doesn't. The Gov is clear on this. It was a general term for describing the area, with a dodgy history, that's being phased out now same as the East Indies, Thule etc

It's the only name for the archipelago though (correct me if wrong actually) and there is shared history.

Checked non English Wikipedia for what is used otherwise, British isles is used but references other versions of the name in english.

I suggest Atlantic archipelago

Sleeper12

riffmongous wrote:

No it doesn't. The Gov is clear on this. It was a general term for describing the area, with a dodgy history, that's being phased out now same as the East Indies, Thule etc

The government was clear on this publicly BUT at the same time they taught this is schools. Teaching it in schools and having it in official education books does give it credence. Despite what other posters try to make out the department of education is responsible for the curriculum and how its implemented. It's ludicrous to suggest that the department of education /government didn't know that this was being taught in school.

Here is one to consider. The ministers stating that it's wasnt recognised were also taught it in school. These ministers knew that the government was educating our children about the British Isles & not these islands of ours.

That my friend is called talking with a forked tongue. Typical political nonsense

Sleeper12

Donnielighto wrote:

I suggest Atlantic archipelago

I found a link earlier today but its lost now. I only glanced at it but it listed several suggestions like above but none were quite right because there were other islands close to the suggested area name that weren't part of the British Isles.

It's a geographical name and not a political one so as a proud but comfortable in my skin nationalist I can't see how it can cause offence. People are too easily offended now a days. Having said that, maybe it's time UK & Irish sit down and come up with a name everyone can get behind. Maybe as simple as the British & Irish Isles? Would we then argue who gets top billing? Irish and British Isles instead? How about the Sleeper Islands?

It's a name. It won't change the fact that we are attached to the UK mainland and these islands.

The Charlie and Maggie Islands. I'm going to dream about that one

blanch152

Round and round we go once again with various descriptions of what it means to be Irish.

There are different definitions of domicile, residency, citizenship, nationality and identity, whether claimed or otherwise.

Irishness encompasses them all. That doesn’t require a united Ireland, neither does it require a divided island, rather it requires each and every one of us to allow people to self identify as they feel no matter where they live. This doesn’t absolve them of the requirement to comply with the law, but does allow for expression of their identity.

careless sherpa

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I found a link earlier today but its lost now. I only glanced at it but it listed several suggestions like above but none were quite right because there were other islands close to the suggested area name that weren't part of the British Isles.

It's a geographical name and not a political one so as a proud but comfortable in my skin nationalist I can't see how it can cause offence. People are too easily offended now a days. Having said that, maybe it's time UK & Irish sit down and come up with a name everyone can get behind. Maybe as simple as the British & Irish Isles? Would we then argue who gets top billing? Irish and British Isles instead? How about the Sleeper Islands?

It's a name. It won't change the fact that we are attached to the UK mainland and these islands.

The Charlie and Maggie Islands. I'm going to dream about that one

It's the mainland now? An Irish nationalist alright. Your use of vocabulary says otherwise